Valid statutory authorization supports VAT show-cause notices; writ interference is unwarranted before the assessee responds.

A show-cause notice for VAT assessment issued under valid statutory authorization was not vitiated merely because the authorizing officer had not recorded reasons, as the applicable rule did not require such recording and no procedural illegality was shown. The writ challenge also failed because the matter was still at the threshold stage and the assessee had not yet responded to the notice; the assessee retained the right to file objections and seek consideration before the assessing authority. In the absence of a clear case of total lack of jurisdiction, writ interference was unwarranted and the statutory assessment process was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authorization issued to the assessing officer and the consequent show-cause notices proposing VAT assessment were without jurisdiction for want of recorded reasons under the applicable rules; and (ii) whether the writ petitions could be entertained at the stage of show-cause notice when the petitioner had not yet responded to the notices.

Issue (i): Whether the authorization issued to the assessing officer and the consequent show-cause notices proposing VAT assessment were without jurisdiction for want of recorded reasons under the applicable rules.

Analysis: The applicable rule prescribing the authorities empowered for VAT assessments did not require the authorizing officer to record reasons before authorizing the Commercial Tax Officer to undertake the proposed assessment. The petitioner did not substantially dispute the existence of authorization, and no procedural violation was shown that would render the authorization invalid. The show-cause notices issued pursuant to such authorization therefore could not be treated as lacking jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of want of jurisdiction failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions could be entertained at the stage of show-cause notice when the petitioner had not yet responded to the notices.

Analysis: The matter was still at the threshold stage and no final assessment had been made. The petitioner was still entitled to submit objections and seek consideration by the assessing authority. Interference in writ jurisdiction at this stage was unwarranted absent a case of total absence of jurisdiction. The statutory process was allowed to run its course, including the petitioner's opportunity to respond and seek relief under the Act.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable at this stage and the challenge to the show-cause notices failed.

Final Conclusion: The notices were held to be valid at the threshold, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory response and hearing before the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice issued pursuant to valid statutory authorization will not be interdicted in writ jurisdiction merely because reasons were not recorded for the authorization or because the assessee has not yet answered the notice, unless there is a clear case of total lack of jurisdiction.

---