Natural justice bars confiscation orders based on grounds not stated in the show cause notice, the High Court held.

Confiscation and penalty could not be sustained where the adjudicating order travelled beyond the show cause notice and failed to consider the petitioner's specific defence. The notice proceeded on an alleged absence of a bill for the seized gold, but the revisional order relied on different considerations, including whether the articles were finished ornaments and their purity. Because an effective opportunity of defence requires notice of the precise case to be met, an order based on unnotified grounds breaches natural justice. The High Court therefore held the confiscation and penalty order liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation and penalty order could be sustained when the impugned order rested on grounds not set out in the show cause notice and did not address the specific defence raised by the petitioner.

Analysis: The notice alleged contravention on the footing that the seized gold was not accompanied by a bill, while the revisional order proceeded on different considerations such as whether the articles were finished ornaments and on their purity. The petitioner's case that the bill had been produced and seized was not dealt with. An effective opportunity of defence requires that the person proceeded against be informed of the precise case to meet, and an adjudication cannot rest on grounds never put to notice. The order therefore offended the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty order could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

---