R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the proprietor of Shree Gujarat Oil Mill at Talod in Sabarkantha District and he is a dealer registered under the Sales Tax Act. He has taken that Mill on lease from its owner. The petitioner has not started any manufacturing activity and has done the business of reselling oil purchased as per his say in the petition. The registration as a dealer is with effect from 13-12-1987. On 28-3-1988 there was a raid search and seizure by. the Special Officer of the Enforcement Branch of the Sales Tax Department at the premises of the petitioner. As a result of the seizure of the documents it appeared that the petitioner had paid less Sales Tax as per the monthly returns and challans and thereby the petitioner appeared to evaded the Sales Tax. As per the returns furnished by the petitioner the turnover of sales was only to the tune of Rs. 1 25 650 and the tax payable thereon was only Rs. 6 32 whereas as per the information collected during the seizure from the premises of the petitioner the turnover of sales was found to the tune of Rs. 3 46 29 844 and the tax payable thereon was Rs. 16 62 235. 00. Thus the petitioner was said to have evaded the tax to such a huge extent. It was also stated in the letter Annexure-A/1 dated 31-3-1988 addressed to the petitioner that a similar case of an Oil Mill at Jamnagar was also noticed in which the Sales Tax dues were outstanding to the tune of Rs. 1 22 71 106 and the defaulters were declared insolvent and thus as a measure of precaution in order that the claim of the State Revenue may not turn back the petitioner was directed to furnish a security of Rs. 17 lacs on or before 8-4-1988 and a reference was made to Sec. 30 and Rule 8 It was also stated that if the petitioner failed to furnish the security proceedings for cancellation of registration would be initiated. By another order Annexure-A/1 on the same date I. e. on 31-3-1988 the respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to furnish security of Rs. 17 lacs under Sec. 26 (6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. By another order Annexure-A/1 on the same date I. e. on 31-3-1988 the respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to furnish security of Rs. 17 lacs under Sec. 26 (6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. One letter Annexure-A/3 of the same date was also issued to one of the customers of the petitioner requesting that customer to pay the amount due by that customer to the petitioner to the State by filing a challan instead of paying it to the petitioner on the ground that Sales Tax dues of Rs. 17 lacs were due to the State. ( 2 ) WHEN this petition was moved before us on 7-4-1988 we had issued notice to the respondent and granted ad interim relief in terms of para 20 (C-1) restraining the respondent from cancelling the registration of the petitioner on condition that the petitioner furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 17 lacs either in immovable property or Bank guarantee or by solvent surety on or before 15-4-1988. ( 3 ) ON the returnable date i. e. on 12-4-1988 the respondent appeared and the matter was heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Sec. 30b of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act the provision regarding furnishing of security by the registered dealers. Sub-sec (2) provides for furnishing of additional security for proper realisation of tax interest and penalty payable under the Act and Sec. 30b (3) was specially relied which reads as follows: No dealer shall be required to furnish any security under sub-sec. (1) or any security or additional security under sub-sec. (2) unless he has been given an opportunity of being heard. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent it was conceded that no show cause notice was issued as the matter was urgent and involving huge amount of public revenue and the estimate of huge tax evasion was based on the record of bills issued by the petitioner and only a total of the bill was taken as the estimate of the turnover and the sales tax. The respondent agreed that they would forthwith issue a show cause notice in accordance with law and the matter was adjourned to 15 A show cause notice dated 13-4-1988 at Annexure-A/5 was issued and served on the petitioner on 14-4-1988 and the hearing of the show cause notice was on 16-4-1988. The respondent agreed that they would forthwith issue a show cause notice in accordance with law and the matter was adjourned to 15 A show cause notice dated 13-4-1988 at Annexure-A/5 was issued and served on the petitioner on 14-4-1988 and the hearing of the show cause notice was on 16-4-1988. Meanwhile the respondent had issued letters of request to some customers of the petitioner Annexure-A/4 requesting them not to pay for the time being to the petitioner the dues in respect of the purchase of oil made by the customers from the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN response to the show cause notice Annexure-A/5 the petitioner made an application Annexure-A/6 on 16-4-1988 to the Sales Tax Commissioner under Sec. 82 for transfer of the case from the respondent-Sales Tax Officer on the ground that he was biased and acting mala fide. For that purpose. the petitioner relied on the allegaions made in para 12 of the petition. The petitioner also filed a reply no the show cause notice on the same date being Annexure-A/7. In that reply be repeated the allegations of mala fide and bias and did not five any reply or explanation about the allegation of tax evasion. The only reply in this connection is para 3 which reads as follows:"as regards your allegation that we have not paid the tax due from us for the month of Posh and the month of Maha we have to submit that your allegations are not correct. Other conclusions are based on prima facie figures of turnover of sales by wrongly considering the same as taxable under the Act. We reserve our right to give detailed reply to this allegation after going through the details of the seized material before the officer to whom our proceedings are transferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. " ( 6 ) THE respondent thereafter passed an order Annexure A/8 on 21 under Sec. 30b (2) whereby the petitioner was directed to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 17 lacs on or before 25-4-1988. ( 7 ) THE impugned action is essentially in the nature of an interlocutory order pending determination of liability after assessment and the order is to furnish security and there is no order to make any deposit or even Bank guarantee. 17 lacs on or before 25-4-1988. ( 7 ) THE impugned action is essentially in the nature of an interlocutory order pending determination of liability after assessment and the order is to furnish security and there is no order to make any deposit or even Bank guarantee. The order is based on the prima facie satisfaction based on the bill books of the petitioner himself wherein the petitioner is shown to have issued Bill Nos. 1 to 784 within a period of two months showing sales worth more than three crores and the separate collection of Sales Tax dues of Rs. 16 lacs to 17 lacs. The petitioner has challenged this action of the respondent on the ground that the respondent-Sales Tax Officer has acted mala fide and with bias; that the opportunity and the notice said to have been given to the petitioner were illusory because according to the petitioner the respondent-Officer had made up his mind by issuing an order Annexure A/1; hat Annexures-A/1 and A/2 were admittedly passed without giving any opportunity and therefore all such actions Annexures-A/1 and A/2 as also letters of request Annexures-A/3 A/4 show cause notice A/5 and the impugned order-A/8 were vitiated and illegal and arbitrary. The allegations of mala fide are made in para 12 of the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these allegations are not denied and no affidavit-in-reply is filed and thereore the Court should admit the petition and grant interim relief. It is not possible to uphold such contention of the petitioner having regard to the flimsiness of allegations. In fact mala fide and bias are the labels given by the petitioner to the actions taken by the respondent-Officer. In para 12 it is stated that: (1)THE respondent had contemplated to penalise the petitioner for not furnishing the return for the month of Kartak SOY. 2044 when the petitioner had started his business only in the month of Magshar. (2) A raid was carried out on 20-3-1988 by the Enforcement Officers of the Sales Tax Department and such enforcement department could not have sent any such information within two days and on 31 which was a public holiday the respondent could not have gathered the information for issuing orders Annexures-A/1 and A/2 and that the report has been prepared subsequently to justify the demand of security of Rs. 17 lacs. 17 lacs. (3) Annexure-A/1 was based on irrelevant ground of evasion of Sales Tax by some relative of the petitioner at Jamnagar. (4) That letters of request and demand for security without issuing notice were illegal void and without jurisdiction. (5) Annexure-A/4 letter of request to several parties was also mala fide with a view to lowering down the reputation of the petitioner. (6) Final order after show cause notice is without giving real Opportunity and using the material behind the back of the petitioner. ( 8 ) NONE of these allegations amount to mata fide or bias. These actions of the Officer were taken bona fide in exercise of powers vested in him under the Act. Merely because one of the actions is found by the Court not in accordance with law it cannot be said that he has acted with mala fide or bias No affidavit-in-reply necessary to meet with these allegations. In fact there is no dispute about the facts and the orders and actions taken by the respondent-Officer. From these admitted facts which are contained in Annexures-A/3 to A/5 and A/8 the petitioner draws an inference of mala fide and bias. It is not possible to countenance such inference. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts mentioned in the show cause notice Annexure-A/5 and the findings in order Annexure-A/8 it is prima facie established that the petitioner has sold large quantities of oil in different districts and this oil brought from outside the State is subject to Sales Tax and the rate of Sales Tax is 4% of the price and additional surcharge is 20% of the same. It is seen from the bill books of the sales effected by the petitioner that from Bill No I dated 12-1-1988 to Bill No. 784 dated 20-3-1988 the petitioner has effected sale of oil worth Rs. 3 44 0 0 and odd and the petitioner has also collected as per those bills additional sums of Rs 13 71 324 as Sales Tax and Rs 2 75 0 as Surcharge. As against that the returns filed by the petitioner for the same period is quite negligible being sales of Rs. 1. 25 650 and Sales Tax and Surcharge is Rs 6. 042/- only. As against that the returns filed by the petitioner for the same period is quite negligible being sales of Rs. 1. 25 650 and Sales Tax and Surcharge is Rs 6. 042/- only. Thus from the documents seized from the petitioners premises it prima facie appears that not only the petitioner has effected hut e turnover of sales of oil running into crores of rupees but has also in fact collected Sales Tax and Surcharge to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs to 17 lacs and not paid to the Government. On this material the petitioner was given an opportunity to render his explanation. Instead of rendering any explanation on that aspect the petitioner has indulged in making the irresponsible and baseless allegations. In para 3 of his reply though he has merely and baldly denied the allegations of having evaded the tax due he has admitted the figures of turnover of sales (which is more than Rs. 3 crores) but stated that they are not taxable under the Act. For that purpose the petitioner has not indicated anything whatsoever as to how they are not taxable. On the contrary each bill shows that the amount of Tax and Surcharge is included in the bill and is collected. In view of such gross facts staring on the face of a public officer acting bona fide he is bound to come to a prima facie conclusion that there has been tax evasion to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs to 17 lacs in absence of any explanation from the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the bias of the respondent Officer the petitioner did not feel that any useful purpose will be served by rendering an explanation. The petitioner was asked to give explanation to the Court. However he has not rendered any explanation In absence of any reasonable explanation prima facie conclusion which is based on the record of the petitioner himself recovered at the premises of the petitioner in the form of bill books of the petitioner cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous. However he has not rendered any explanation In absence of any reasonable explanation prima facie conclusion which is based on the record of the petitioner himself recovered at the premises of the petitioner in the form of bill books of the petitioner cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous. ( 11 ) THE petitioner has submitted that he was not given a reasonable opportunity because the notice was served on 14-3-1988 and he was asked to render his explanation on 16-3-1988 and that he had no opportunity to take inspection of the documents in possession of the department. The procedure for hearing and giving opportunity would depend upon the facts of each case. When the petitioner is alleged to have carried on undisclosed and unaccounted sales running into crores of rupees during the short span of two months as registered dealer and continued to collect the Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs to Rs. 17 lacs under the cover of a registered dealer the urgency of the situation demanded that the petitioner should give his explanation at the earliest. The raid was carried out on 20-3-1988. The petitioner was given hearing on 12-4-1988 as to on what basis the estimate of evasion of Sales Tax and the turnover was made and in fact the learned Counsel for the petitioner had indicated that when show cause notice is issued his client would co-operate in the hearing of the show cause notice. The urgency and immediate action was not only the need of the situation but was also realised by all concerned including the petitioner. It is therefore not correct to say that reasonable opportunity was not given. Even though that allegations were made in para 12 of the petition it was not suggested on 12-4-1988 that the show cause notice should not be issued and heard by the respondent-Officer. The show cause notice gave sufficient time and notice to the petitioner to give his explanation. However he has failed to give any explanation which prima facie shows that he has no explanation to give and that the allegations made in the show cause notice have substance. At this stage the petitioner is only required to furnish security. The show cause notice gave sufficient time and notice to the petitioner to give his explanation. However he has failed to give any explanation which prima facie shows that he has no explanation to give and that the allegations made in the show cause notice have substance. At this stage the petitioner is only required to furnish security. A strong prima facie case has been made out regarding tax evasion and with a view to protect the public revenue the order or security has been passed so that after the regular assessment if Sales Tax dues are established the same can be recovered. At this stage no lengthy proceedings are contemplated much less in the present case where facts are very eloquent and the defence is not made and no explanation is rendered. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Annexure-A/1 which was issued without notice is not yet set aside and therefore no order Annexure-A/8 could have been passed. Admittedly Annexure-A/1 was without any notice and reasonable opportunity and was void and it did not survive when the show cause notice was issued and the fresh order is passed. Thus same is the position with regard to Annexure-A/2. Both do not survive and no argument can be based on the same. They are not cancelled expressly but it is obvious that they do not survive and therefore are not required to be cancelled. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the letter Annexure-A/3 proceeds on the basis that amount of Rs. 17 lacs is due and a challan has been sent to the customer of the petitioner requesting him to pay to the State the amount due to the petitioner. It is true that no amount is yet found due by any assessment. However it is only a letter of request and there is no need to pass any order in respect of the same. Annexure-A/4 is purely a simple letter of request not to pay the amount to the petitioner for the time being. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in law enabling the Sales Tax Officer to write such letters or make such demands. No demand whatsoever has been made. It is merely a letter of request to protect the public revenue. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in law enabling the Sales Tax Officer to write such letters or make such demands. No demand whatsoever has been made. It is merely a letter of request to protect the public revenue. There is no prohibition in law in issuing such letters of request especially when it is in the interest of public revenue. It is merely a request. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in the case of Hasmukhbhai Dhanjibhai Zaveri v. R Parthsarthi XII GLR 128 and submitted that the vice that attaches to an order passed in contravention of Rules of natural justice cannot be cured expost facto by affording to the person affected thereby an opportunity to represent his case after the order is passed. An order made in breach of the principles of natural justice is void and an opportunity given to the affected person to represent his case after such an order is made cannot have the effect of resuscitating a still-born order. The fatal defect in the proceeding may be cured only if the authority passing the order realising that it had acted hastily and arbitrarily annuls its decision proceeds to reconsider the whole matter afresh affording to the person affected a reasonable opportunity to represent his case and arrives at a fresh decision. In the present case the fatal defect was pointed out in the Court at the hearing on 12-4-1988 and the authority realising that it has acted hastily agreed to issue a show cause notice and to pass a fresh order after following the procedure of Sec. 30b (3) of the Act. This was during the course of hearing in the open Court in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore this judgment on the contrary supports the respondent rather than the petitioner. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 1981 SCC 664 and our attention was invited to paras 77 and 84 of the said judgment. Therefore this judgment on the contrary supports the respondent rather than the petitioner. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India 1981 SCC 664 and our attention was invited to paras 77 and 84 of the said judgment. The Supreme Court observed in the contex of audi alteram partem Rule that cases of extreme urgency where action under Sec. 18 (i) (a) (Industries Development and Regulation Act) to prevent fall in production and consequent injury to public interest brooks absolutely no delay would he rare. In most cases where the urgency is not so extreme it is practicable to adjust and strike a balance between the competing claims of hurry and hearing. The Supreme Court further observed in para 78 that the Rule of natural justice is very flexible malleable and adaptable concept of natural justice and to adjust and harmonise the need for speed and obligation to act fairly it can be modified and the measure of its application cut short in reasonable proportion to the exigencies of the situation. The exigency and urgency of the situation in the present case is very eloquent If the action for additional security is not taken and the petitioner continues to run his business as a registered dealer. the petitioner would continue to collect huge amounts of Sales Tax from customers and not pay the same to the State. Therefore his judgment also does not assist the petitioners cause. ( 16 ) THE impugned order Annexure-A/8 is not suffering from any infirmity There is a well established prima facie case of evasion of huge amount of Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 16 lacs to 17 lacs and therefore the additional security is rightly demanded and if the petitioner fails to furnish such security the consequences are bound to follow. The letters of request Annexures-A/3 and A/4 are not shown to be against any provision of law or not shown to have been prohibited by any provision of law and therefore they cannot be set aside. ( 17 ) IN the result all the contentions of the petitioner fail and the petition is required to be summarily rejected. Petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief vacated. ( 17 ) IN the result all the contentions of the petitioner fail and the petition is required to be summarily rejected. Petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief vacated. 18 The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an oral application for certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this case which requires grant of such certificate. Hence the request is rejected. The learned Counsel has also requested that the interim relief be continued for a period of two weeks However in the facts and circumstances of the present case we do not consider that it would be proper to continue the interim relief because of the gross facts of the present case. Therefore the prayer for stay is rejected petition dismissed: Rule discharged. .