S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner viz. Supreme Paper Mills Ltd. Filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal". It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was carrying on business of manufacturing various types of papers at its paper mill situated at village Raninagar, Chakdah, Dist. Nadia. It had challenged the notice under section 11e (2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, for reopening of deemed assessment for the period from 1st January, 1989 to 31st March, 1989. Petitioner also filed three separate applications being registered as RN-204, RN-205 and RN-206 of 1999 apart from RN-203 of 1999 challenging respective notices in each case under section 9a (2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. All the four cases, as referred to, arose out of the similar set of circumstances though related to different periods. The Tribunal heard all the said four cases analogously and by the impugned judgment dated 27th july, 2001, dismissed the same. ( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner has filed the instant application. The grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may be capsulated in a few sentences as follows: ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed necessary return within the due period in question under 1941 Act and paid the taxes on the basis of the said return and the same was under section 11e (1) of the 1941 Act which was treated as correct and complete. The assessment for the said period was deemed to have been made under section 11e (1) of the 1941 Act by operation of law. Strangely enough, the petitioner received notice dated 24th June, 1999 from Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Corporate Division in the afternoon of the said date. The petitioner was thus directed to show cause under section 11e (2) of the 1941 Act against proposal for reopening the deemed assessment as according to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed incorrect statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales in the return submitted. The petitioner was thus directed to show cause under section 11e (2) of the 1941 Act against proposal for reopening the deemed assessment as according to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed incorrect statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales in the return submitted. Petitioner sought to assail the notice on the ground that it contained no factual basis for arriving at a conclusion that there had been any incorrect statement of turnover/incorrect particulars of sales. It was also challenged on the ground that 15 days time from the date of receipt of the notice for showing cause had not been given. Such notices under section 9a (2) of the Act of 1954 read with Rule 22aa of the Rules of 1954 were thus sought to be quashed. ( 4 ) IN response to this, the respondent contested the said cases before the Tribunal on the ground that there had been sufficient reason for issuing such notices and it had been stated that section 11e (2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act 1941 of section 9a (2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 do not warrant recording of reason in the show-cause notice. ( 5 ) SECTION 11a of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 deals with assessment deemed to be made in certain cases. Referring to the said section, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the return furnished in accordance with the said provision shall be accepted as correct and complete. Referring to section 11 (E) (2) (b) of the said Act, 1941, it is submitted that reopening may be justified where the Commissioner is satisfied on information or otherwise that a registered dealer has concealed any sales or particulars thereof or has furnished incorrect statement of his turnover or incorrect particulars of his sales in the return submitted under section 10 or otherwise. ( 6 ) OUR attention has been drawn to Rule 54aa (1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 which reads follows :"54aa. ( 6 ) OUR attention has been drawn to Rule 54aa (1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 which reads follows :"54aa. (1) Where an assessment in respect of any period or periods of a dealer is deemed to have been made under section 11e and where it appears necessary to a Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction in respect of the dealer to proceed under sub-section (2) of section 11e, he may issue a notice calling upon the dealer to show cause if any, on a date fixed ordinarily after fifteen days from the date of service of the notice, why the deemed assessment shall not be reopened and fresh assessment and other proceedings shall not be started in accordance with the provisions of the said sub-section. . . . (2) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the dealer in pursuance of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1), [or after considering the documents and evidence produced in pursuance of the notice referred in sub-rule (1a) as the case may be, the Deputy Commissioner may re-open an assessment by an order in writing directing the Assessing authority to make a fresh assessment in respect of any period deemed to have been made and he shall record briefly but clearly his reasons for such reopening and inform the dealer also accordingly. " ( 7 ) IT is argued that the Deputy Commissioner is under legal obligation to record briefly but clearly his reasons for such reopening and inform the dealer also. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is a well settled principle strictly followed by the Courts that when an authority, which is a creature of the statute, exercises any power conferred on him by the statute, is required to follow the procedure laid down therein. While issuing notices the authority concerned is required to state therein that upon information or in some other manner he is prima facie satisfied with any of the Act stated in clause (a) of (b) of section 11e (2) has been committed by the dealer and, therefore, he is asking the concerned dealer to show cause, if any, why the deemed assessments should not be reopened and why fresh assessments should not be made under section 11 (1 ). Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Sanwarmal Agarwal v. Inspector of Commercial Taxes and 5 Others reported in Sales Tax Advices, Vol. 28, Page 18, wherein it has been held that "it is true that the prima facie satisfaction under section 11 (E) (2) should be objective in the sense that it should not arise out of bias or a preconceived mind or on the basis of something extraneous and such satisfaction is certainly a condition precedent. Unless there is such a satisfaction there can be no occasion for issuing a notice to show cause why a deemed assessment should not be reopened. " Reference has also been made to the decision in the case of Appollo Tyres limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Ors. reported in Sales Tax advices, Vol. 38, page 4, wherein it had been held that "rule 22aa of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954, provides for service of show cause notice upon the assessee and to give 15 days time to the assessee to reply to the same. The basic object of issuing show cause notice was to intimate the dealer about the alleged concealment of sales and/or furnishing of alleged incorrect particulars for precise details in order to enable the dealer to reply the same. Therefore, the service of a valid notice containing the particulars of allegations of alleged concealment of sales and/or alleged incorrect particulars is a sine quo non for assuming power or jurisdiction to reopen the deemed assessment that is to say the service of a valid notice within the period of limitation is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction for reopening the deemed assessment under section 9a of the Act. learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the decision in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam and Anr. v. Uttareswari Rice Mills as reported in 1972 SC, Vol, XXX, Page 567 in support of his contention that there must be sufficient reason to believe that there had been any incorrect statement. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that a reason cannot exist in vacuum. v. Uttareswari Rice Mills as reported in 1972 SC, Vol, XXX, Page 567 in support of his contention that there must be sufficient reason to believe that there had been any incorrect statement. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that a reason cannot exist in vacuum. Somebody must form the belief that reason exists and looking to the context in which the words are used, it should be Sales Tax Authority issuing the notice who should have reason to believe that the turn over of a dealer has escaped assessment or has been under assessed. "the approach in this matter has to be practical and not pedantic. " ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner referring to the notice issued in the case under reference submits that such notice does not disclose anything and there is no material to show how the concerned authority could develop such reasonable belief and what was the material leading to such belief. ; It is further pointed out that ordinarily 15 days time is to be given for showing cause before reopening, but in the instant case, the notice was received on 24. 6. 99 in the afternoon and the petitioner was directed to show cause on 29. 6. 99. ( 9 ) IN response to this, the learned counsel for the respondent has, at the very outset, pointed out that no attempt should be made to read more than what meets the eyes. It is pointed out that ordinarily 15 days time should be given but even if that is not done, the notice cannot be quashed on that score alone. The relevant provision is not mandatory but it cannot be denied that such 15 days time should ordinarily be given in order to enable the concerned person to come ready in response to show cause notice. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that sufficiency of the notice is to be determined in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances. In this contest, it is perhaps necessary to refer to the words of "maxwell on the Interpretation of statute", (12th edition page 256), "it is a well settled rule of law that all charges upon the subject must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language, because in some degree they operate as penalty. In this contest, it is perhaps necessary to refer to the words of "maxwell on the Interpretation of statute", (12th edition page 256), "it is a well settled rule of law that all charges upon the subject must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language, because in some degree they operate as penalty. The subject is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes the obligation and language must not be strained in order to tax a transaction which, had the legislature thought of it, would have been covered by appropriate words. "in a taxing Act" one is required to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. In the words of J. Rowlatt, "nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used. " ( 10 ) HERE in the instant case, we are to consider essentially two things, i. e. whether the notice would be held to be defective as it does not give a time period of 15 days as prescribed in the statute and whether non-mentioning of the materials leading to the satisfaction of the concerned authority in order to justify issuance of notice would make the same bad. ( 11 ) IN our view, the time prescribed i. e. the period of 15 days is not intended to be mandatory at all. In fact the legislature has prescribed that it should be ordinarily 15 days. Thus, the first point is decided in favour of the respondent. ( 12 ) NO doubt, prima facie satisfaction under section 11e (2) should be objective and, as referred to earlier, it should not arise out of bias or a pre-conceived mind or on the basis of something extraneous. It is also not denied that the inherent object of issuing show-cause notice is to enable the dealer to reply to the alleged furnishing of incorrect statement of turnover or incorrect particulars of sales. But there is no statutory minimum in this regard and sufficiency of materials leading to satisfaction may vary from one case to another. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that non-mentioning of the reason or the particulars of concealed sales etc. by it self cannot render notice proposing reopening of deemed assessment bad in law. But there is no statutory minimum in this regard and sufficiency of materials leading to satisfaction may vary from one case to another. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has observed that non-mentioning of the reason or the particulars of concealed sales etc. by it self cannot render notice proposing reopening of deemed assessment bad in law. It has been further observed that the petitioner would get chance again of a hearing in the fresh assessment proceeding if deemed assessment is ultimately ordered to be reopened. We would, however, like to go a step further in pointing out that the notice under challenge reflects the essential and inherent reason i. e. "deemed assessment case exhibit incorrect statement of your turnover/incorrect particulars of sales. . . . . . . . . . . " ( 13 ) IT may be pointed out that "although statutes imposing pecuniary burdens are construed strictly in favour of those on whom the burden is sought to be imposed and in revenue statutes, in particular, the subject is aided by presumptions such as that against the double taxation, the question is primarily that of the full and fair application of particular statutory language to particular facts as found. The desirability or the undesirability of one conclusion as compared that another cannot furnish a guide in reaching a decision. (Ref. Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition by p. St. J. Langan,)" "just as the Courts will not narrow provisions designed to curb evasion, so they often apply ordinary charging sections with an eye to the substance of the transaction to taxed rather than its form. " ( 14 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clearly seen that the concerned authority while issuing notice on consideration of the returns submitted formed the belief that the deemed assessment exhibited incorrect statement or turnover/incorrect particulars of sales. In absence of any statutory minimum as to the sufficiency of the materials forming the belief, it can be said that the notice under reference does not deserve to be brushed aside. After all, the Court is required to take a purposive approach and the said purpose should not get frustrated on mere technical interpretation. In absence of any statutory minimum as to the sufficiency of the materials forming the belief, it can be said that the notice under reference does not deserve to be brushed aside. After all, the Court is required to take a purposive approach and the said purpose should not get frustrated on mere technical interpretation. Following the principles of harmonious construction, it can be said that law demands prima facie material forming belief at the time of issuance of notice but requires recording of reasons, briefly but clearly, at the time of reopening and directing fresh assessment. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the notice in the backdrop of the legal position as discussed earlier, we are of the view that such notice does not suffer from any such inherent defect which would justify quashing of the same. Accordingly, we are unable to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal and as such, the instant application be dismissed on contest. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment on the usual undertaking. T. Chatterjee, J.-I agree, the prayer for stay of operation of this order as made by the petitioner is considered and refused. Application dismissed