Proper officer requirement invalidated the show cause notice, and any fresh notice must follow pre notice consultation.

A show cause notice issued by an officer who was not the proper officer was set aside because the governing circular identified the competent authority as the Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. The Court held that any fresh notice, if proposed, must first follow pre show cause notice consultation where applicable. The merits of the proposed recovery of refund were left open for future adjudication, so only the jurisdictional defect in issuing the notice was ative at this stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice was liable to be set aside for having been issued by an officer who was not the proper officer, and whether a fresh notice could be issued only after pre show cause notice consultation.

Analysis: The challenge to the notice was accepted in view of the concession that the officer issuing it was not the proper officer under the governing circular, which clarified that the competent authority would be the Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. The Court also directed that if a fresh notice is proposed, the petitioner must first be given pre show cause notice consultation. Other contentions, including the merits of the proposed recovery of refund, were left open.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was set aside, with liberty to issue a fresh notice through the proper officer after pre show cause notice consultation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on the jurisdictional defect in the issuance of the notice, while leaving the substantive disputes open for future adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice issued by an authority that is not the proper officer is liable to be set aside, and any fresh action must comply with the requirement of pre notice consultation where applicable.

---