Writ jurisdiction and penalty proceedings: delayed challenge to a show cause notice was refused as premature.

A writ petition challenging a Board direction and a consequential show cause notice was not entertained because it was filed more than two years after the impugned order, an available statutory remedy had not been pursued, and the penalty proceedings had not yet culminated in a final order. The court therefore declined to exercise jurisdiction under article 226, treated the challenge as premature and delayed, and left the assessing authority to decide the penalty issue according to law and the facts of the case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Board's order and the consequent show cause notice was maintainable in view of delay, availability of statutory remedy, and the fact that the penalty proceedings had not yet culminated in a final order.

Analysis: The petition was filed more than two years after the impugned order of the Board. The Court noted that the assessee could have sought a reference on the legality of the Board's direction but did not do so. It also observed that the assessment authority had only issued a show cause notice and had not yet finally closed the question of penalty. In these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere under article 226, leaving it open to the assessing authority to decide the question of penalty according to law and on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed as premature and delayed, with the penalty issue left to be decided by the assessing authority.

---