Writ interference with show cause notices is limited; disputed tax allegations should be answered before the issuing authority first.

Interference with a show cause notice under Articles 226 and 227 is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is patently without authority, beyond jurisdiction, time-barred, or discloses no cause of action. A writ court should not conduct a fact-finding exercise at the notice stage; the recipient must ordinarily place factual and legal objections before the issuing authority, which is competent to assess the dispute. Because the notice alleging non-payment of sales tax and proposing cancellation of registration under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act disclosed no jurisdictional defect, it was not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice proposing cancellation of registration and penal action could be quashed in writ jurisdiction on factual and legal grounds without first submitting a reply to the notice.

Analysis: Interference with a show cause notice under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is confined to exceptional cases where the notice is patently without authority of law, beyond jurisdiction, barred by limitation, or discloses no cause of action. The writ court is not to undertake a fact-finding inquiry at the stage of notice, because the recipient must ordinarily raise factual and legal objections before the issuing authority, which alone is competent to examine the disputed facts and decide whether action should follow. The notice in question related to alleged non-payment of sales tax and proposed cancellation of registration under Section 15(10)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and did not disclose any jurisdictional defect warranting immediate quashing.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction and the challenge failed.

---