Retesting rights in sample-testing procedure were treated as essential, leading to quashing of the show cause notice.

Compliance with the prescribed sample-testing procedure was central, particularly communication of the test report and preservation of the assessee's right to seek retesting under Clause 8.8 of Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005. The text notes that the petitioner objected that the sample itself had not been furnished, so the retesting right could not be effectively exercised, and that the respondents did not satisfactorily address this procedural lapse. It further states that, on this reasoning and in line with an earlier similar challenge, the show cause notice was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned show cause notice was liable to be quashed for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure relating to testing of samples and the assessee's right to seek retesting.

Analysis: The dispute centred on the statutory procedure governing taking of samples, communication of the test report, and preservation of the assessee's opportunity to apply for retesting. Clause 8.8 of Chapter 11 of the CBEC Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 recognises a right to retest within the prescribed period after communication of the test result, and the petitioners complained that the sample itself had not been furnished so that the right could be effectively exercised. The respondents did not satisfactorily meet the objection regarding compliance with the sample-providing requirement. The earlier notice in the matter had also been quashed on a similar ground of violation of the prescribed procedure.

Conclusion: The Court held that the statutory procedure had been violated and that the petitioners' right to seek retesting was infringed, and therefore quashed the show cause notice while leaving it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---