Mandatory notice to consignee vitiates penalty proceedings, and defect-based challenges should ordinarily be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Penalty proceedings under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act were treated as unsustainable where mandatory notice to the consignee was not served in the circumstances, because the defect in service vitiated the penalty order. The proper appellate course, once the notice defect was accepted, was to remit the matter for fresh adjudication by the competent authority rather than finally terminate liability on that procedural ground. The stated result was remand for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty proceedings under section 14B(7)(iii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 were unsustainable for want of notice to the consignee, and whether the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The notice requirement to the consignee was treated as mandatory in the circumstances of the case. Since the consignee had paid the penalty and had itself pursued the appeal, the absence of notice rendered the penalty order unsustainable. Once the Tribunal accepted the defect in service, the proper course was not to finally terminate the matter but to remit it to the competent authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was required to remand the matter for fresh adjudication, and its failure to do so was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the competent appellate authority for decision on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notice to the person liable is mandatory and its absence vitiates the penalty proceedings, the appellate forum should ordinarily remit the matter for fresh adjudication rather than finally disposing of the liability on that procedural defect alone.

---