Writ interference with show-cause notices is exceptional where valuation and suppression issues require factual adjudication before the authority.

Writ interference at the show-cause notice stage is exceptional and lies only where the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction or abusive on its face. Where the dispute turns on valuation, inclusion of bought-out hardware in the assessable value, or allegations of suppression and undervaluation, the recipient must ordinarily reply to the notice and raise objections before the adjudicating authority. On the pleaded allegations, the proposed demand was not a facial nullity, and the foundation for invoking the extended period could not be rejected in writ proceedings. The proper course is to contest the notice through the statutory process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition should be entertained at the stage of a show-cause notice on the ground that the proposed demand on bought-out hardware items was without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period for demand of duty was without jurisdiction on the basis of alleged suppression and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition should be entertained at the stage of a show-cause notice on the ground that the proposed demand on bought-out hardware items was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Interference with a show-cause notice is exceptional and is justified only where the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction or amounts to an abuse of process. Where factual adjudication is required, the recipient must ordinarily reply to the notice and raise all objections before the adjudicating authority. On the facts pleaded in the notice, the department's case that the bought-out items formed an integral part of the doors and their value was includible in the assessable value was not a nullity on its face, especially in light of the principle that valuation may include value addition from items supplied as part of the composite product.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice on jurisdictional grounds was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period for demand of duty was without jurisdiction on the basis of alleged suppression and undervaluation.

Analysis: At the stage of notice, the allegations contained in the notice are to be taken as true. The notice alleged suppression of the value of hardware items, non-disclosure of the unregistered godown, and under-valuation with intent to evade duty. On those allegations, the foundation for invoking the extended period could not be held to be absent in a writ proceeding, and the assessee was required to answer the charge before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The invocation of the extended period was upheld at the notice stage.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interdict the proceedings under Article 226 and relegated the petitioner to respond to the notice before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice can be interdicted in writ jurisdiction only when it is ex facie without jurisdiction; otherwise, especially where valuation and suppression issues require factual adjudication, the proper course is to submit a reply and contest the matter before the statutory authority.

---