A challenge to a show-cause notice is premature before the petitioner submits a response.

The petitioner’s BMW, registered in Pondicherry, was seized in Karnataka on the allegation that it had been plied in the State without payment of applicable road tax.

Respondent No. 3 issued an inspection report/show-cause notice dated 15 August 2024, calling upon the petitioner to respond before proceedings were initiated.

The petitioner challenged that notice, asserting that the vehicle had not been continuously used in Karnataka.

During the petition, the vehicle was released under an interim order against an indemnity bond of ₹10 lakh and a local surety.

The State submitted that the petitioner should respond to the notice and that the competent authority would consider his reply.

1. Whether the inspection report/show-cause notice dated 15 August 2024 should be quashed before the petitioner had submitted a response to it

2. Whether the petitioner’s response should be considered by the competent authority, and what directions were required regarding the released vehicle and indemnity bond

The Court cited no specific statute or precedent.

The procedural principle applied was that, where a show-cause notice gives the affected person an opportunity to answer allegations before penal action is taken, the person should submit a response and the competent authority should consider it in accordance with law.

The Court also held that the indemnity bond furnished for release of the vehicle remained subject to the ultimate decision in the proceedings.

The Court treated Annexure-A as both an inspection report and a show-cause notice, noting that it called upon the petitioner to respond before any penal action was taken.

Because the petitioner had not answered the notice, the Court directed him to do so rather than quashing it.

It left the allegation concerning use of the Pondicherry-registered vehicle in Karnataka, and the petitioner’s contentions, for consideration by respondent No. 4.

It granted the petitioner two weeks to respond to Annexure-A and directed respondent No. 4 to consider the response and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter.

The vehicle remained released subject to the indemnity bond, which was made subject to the final outcome of the proceedings; all contentions were left open.