Mandatory written notice under Gold Control law is essential before penalty; defective notice makes the penalty jurisdictionally invalid.

Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act required a written notice stating the grounds of the proposed confiscation or penalty and giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity to respond. Where the notice did not allege any contravention by the firm, did not propose penalty against it, and did not call upon it to show cause, the penalty was jurisdictionally defective. Mere participation in the adjudication proceedings did not cure that foundational breach, because compliance with the statutory notice requirement was mandatory and formed part of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant firm was sustainable when no notice in writing under the Gold (Control) Act informed the firm of the grounds of proposed penalty or called upon it to show cause.

Analysis: Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 required that no order of confiscation or penalty be made unless the owner or other person concerned received a written notice stating the grounds of the proposed action and was given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. The notice on record did not allege contravention by the firm, did not propose penalty against it, and did not call upon it to show cause. Mere participation in the adjudication proceedings did not cure this foundational defect, because compliance with the statutory notice requirement was mandatory and integral to natural justice.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant firm was jurisdiction and illegal, and the assessee succeeded.

---