Show-cause notice challenge: interim stay refused where objections could be raised before the taxing authority.

Interim protection against a show-cause notice was held unwarranted where the notice was issued by a competent taxing authority and the recipient could raise all objections before that authority. The court noted that the writ petition had remained at the motion stage for years, the amended petition was not filed within time, and the miscellaneous application was being used to seek stay without properly assailing the notice in the writ petition. Since the challenge to ascertainment of turnover under the luxury tax statute could be pursued before the issuing authority, the miscellaneous application was held not maintainable and stay was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application seeking stay of a show-cause notice was maintainable in a pending but unadmitted writ petition challenging the luxury tax statute, and whether interim interference was warranted at the show-cause stage.

Analysis: The pending writ petition had remained at the motion stage for years, no effective steps had been taken to prosecute it to hearing, and the amended writ petition had not been filed within the time granted. The impugned notice was issued by the competent taxing authority and related to ascertainment of turnover under the luxury tax statute. The challenge to the notice essentially raised issues that could be urged before the issuing authority itself, and the petitioner had already responded to the notice by seeking time. In these circumstances, the court held that the miscellaneous application was being used only to obtain interim protection without properly assailing the notice in the writ petition. Interference at the threshold of a show-cause notice was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was held to be not maintainable and the request for stay was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The court declined to interdict the show-cause proceedings and left the petitioner to pursue its objections before the statutory authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not ordinarily grant interim protection against a show-cause notice where the notice is issued by a competent authority and the recipient can raise all available objections before that authority, unless a clear absence of jurisdiction is shown.

---