Mandatory notice period under the Gold (Control) Act required strict compliance; delayed service without valid extension invalidated the proceedings.

Service of a show cause notice under section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 had to be completed within six months of seizure unless the Collector validly extended time after giving notice and an opportunity to object. The Court applied the mandatory safeguards for extension and held that extension could not be granted mechanically. Because the notices were served after expiry of the original period and valid compliance with the extension procedure was not shown, the proceedings were invalid and the seizure could not be sustained, resulting in return of the gold.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the show cause notices on the petitioners beyond the six-month period prescribed under the second proviso to section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and without compliance with the safeguards for extension of time, was valid.

Analysis: The notice for adjudication under section 79 had to be served within six months from the date of seizure unless the Collector validly extended the period. The Court applied the Supreme Court's interpretation that the power of extension is subject to mandatory safeguards, namely, notice to the person concerned and an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed extension, and that extension cannot be granted mechanically. On the admitted facts, the notices were served one day after expiry of the original period, and the extension was not shown to have been granted in conformity with those safeguards.

Conclusion: The service of notices was not in accordance with section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the delay was fatal to the validity of the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The seizure could not be sustained for want of valid and timely service of the statutory notice, and the writ petitions succeeded with a direction for return of the gold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires service of notice within a fixed period and permits extension only subject to hearing and reasoned satisfaction, strict compliance with those safeguards is mandatory and delayed service without valid extension invalidates the proceedings.

---