ORDER A.K. Gohil, J. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of revision dated 8-9-2000 (Annexure-E) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division I, Indore in Revision Case No. 219/88/ State for the period from 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993 under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short the Act of 1958) and sought the relief of quashment of the aforesaid order Annexure-E and to hold that no penalty is leviable u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 against the Petitioner. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Shri C.R. Pancholiya, for Petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondents/Department. Shri Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate only challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000-00 imposed u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 and has not challenged the penalty imposed u/s 17(3) of the Act of 1958. His main submission is that the order of imposition of penalty u/s 43(1) is without jurisdiction and illegal since no notice was issued to the Petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed under the said provisions, and no penalty can be imposed on the Petitioner u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 as the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the purview of the provision of Section 43(1) of the Act of 1958. In reply Shri Mukati, learned Govt. Advocate for Respondents/Department submitted that notice Annexure-R/1 was issued in the prescribed Form No. 16 to the Petitioner and the same was also received. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot argue that no notice was issued to the Petitioner. I have perused the aforesaid document Annexure R/1 which is a copy of the notice in Form No. 16. Notice under Form No. 16 to be issued under Sections 14-K, 17(3), 18-4 K & Kh, 18-6, 18-7, 19-1, 19-3 and for Section 43 also under Rules 33 and 35. After seeing the notice it appears that it is a general notice which is to be issued for all types of assessments and penalties leviable under the Act. The Department is issuing this general notice indicating therein the purpose for which the same was being issued and after scoring out the rest of the portion which is not applicable. After seeing the notice it appears that it is a general notice which is to be issued for all types of assessments and penalties leviable under the Act. The Department is issuing this general notice indicating therein the purpose for which the same was being issued and after scoring out the rest of the portion which is not applicable. In this Annexure R/1 they have directed for imposition of penalty u/s 17(3) and scored out the portion relating to the penalty u/s 43(1). Therefore, the submission of Shri Chaphekar is that this was a notice for imposing penalty u/s 17(3) and not for u/s 43(1) because the portion of penalty u/s 43(1) has been scored out and all the columns which are required to be filled by the Department for treating the notice for penalty u/s 43(1) have been left blank. Penalty u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 can be imposed on the ground that a dealer has concealed his turnover or the aggregate of purchase price in respect of any goods or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such sales or purchases, as the case may be, or has furnished a false return. In this case in hand the allegations of filing false returns were made against the Petitioner for imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000-00 and the submission of the Petitioner was that neither notice nor any reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided before imposing a penalty and his further submission was that the Petitioner filed one return for the quarter ending on 30-6-1992 according to which total receipts for the work contract of retrading amounted to Rs. 12,10,920-00 and no returns were filed for the remaining three quarters of the period of assessment 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. Though the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax had set-aside ex-parte order of assessment and had remanded the case for re-assessment and thereafter assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000-00 u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958. 12,10,920-00 and no returns were filed for the remaining three quarters of the period of assessment 1-4-1992 to 31-3-1993. Though the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax had set-aside ex-parte order of assessment and had remanded the case for re-assessment and thereafter assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000-00 u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for Petitioner that the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Act of 1958 were not attracted in the case of the Petitioner, firstly the Petitioner had not filed return for the remaining three quarters of the period for which he was assessed and, therefore, there was no concealment of any turnover or falsity in the return when the returns were not submitted for the rest of three quarters. Therefore, the order of imposing penalty is not only illegal and against the principles of natural justice as no notice was given nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner but also without jurisdiction as the case of not filing returns for the remaining three quarters does not fall within the purview of either concealment of his turnover or furnishing false return and thus a penalty cannot be imposed even on merits. To appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for Petitioner on the point of notice, even if it is assumed that notice dated 31-10-1996 was served on the Petitioner, the said notice cannot be said to be a notice u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 as the relevant portion was scored out and no particulars were mentioned as per the requirement under the law. There must be a clear notice with the factual aspect that how there was concealment of turnover or relating to the filing of false return and in the absence of such facts in the notice neither notice can be treated as notice u/s 43(1) and nor a penalty can be imposed in violation thereof and any penalty can only be levied after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the dealer. This proposition of reasonable opportunity of being heard includes notice disclosing the entire material against the Petitioner for imposing penalty. This proposition of reasonable opportunity of being heard includes notice disclosing the entire material against the Petitioner for imposing penalty. Rule 33 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 provides for manner of assessment, re-assessment and imposition of penalty which clearly provides that where a dealer has deliberately concealed his turnover of sale in respect of any goods or has furnished a false return, then in every such case, the assessing authority shall serve on the dealer a notice which shall as far as may be, be in Form XVI specifying the default, escapement or concealment, as the case may be, and calling upon him to show cause by such date, ordinarily not less than 30 days from the date of service of the notice as the case may be, fixed in that behalf, why he should not be assessed or reassessed to tax and/or penalty should not be imposed upon him and directing him to produce on the said date his books of accounts and other documents which the assessing authority may require and any evidence which he may wish to produce in support of his objection. And it has been further provided that for considering the objection raised by the dealer and examining such evidence as may be produced by him and after taking such other evidence as may be available, assess or re-assess the dealer to tax and/or impose a penalty or pass any other suitable order. The aforesaid requirement of Rule 33 is mandatory and in the absence of fulfilment of such requirement it cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the Petitioner. Thus, considering the aforesaid factual aspect as well as legal aspect of the matter as no facts were disclosed either about the concealment of the turnover or about filing the false return in Annexure R/1 and not submitting the returns' for rest of the three quarters cannot fall within the purview of Section 43(1) and no penalty can be imposed. Penalty u/s 17(3) for not filing return has already been imposed, which the Petitioner is not challenging. Thus in view of this factual aspect on record, there cannot be any case of breach of either of provisions u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 or the provisions of Rule 33 of Rules, 1959 in this case. Penalty u/s 17(3) for not filing return has already been imposed, which the Petitioner is not challenging. Thus in view of this factual aspect on record, there cannot be any case of breach of either of provisions u/s 43(1) of the Act of 1958 or the provisions of Rule 33 of Rules, 1959 in this case. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Division I, Indore on 8-9-2000 (Annexure-E) is hereby set-aside. Consequently the order of assessing authority dated 25-10-1997 is also set-aside. No order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed