Writ jurisdiction against a tax show cause notice was declined where statutory remedy existed and material facts were suppressed.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked to quash a show cause notice issued under a taxing statute where the noticee can raise objections before the competent authority and pursue statutory remedies. Interference is justified only if the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction or discloses no case on its face. The Court also treated suppression of material facts and lack of candour, including non-disclosure of related proceedings, as reasons to refuse discretionary relief. Because an effective statutory remedy remained available and the petitioner had not approached with full disclosure, the writ challenge was rejected and the petitioner was left to work out its objections before the authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a show cause notice issued under the taxing statute. (ii) Whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised in favour of the petitioner despite suppression of material facts and the availability of statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable against a show cause notice issued under the taxing statute.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against a show cause notice. The governing principle applied was that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked to interdict a notice when the noticee has an adequate opportunity to place objections before the issuing authority. Interference is justified only where, on the face of the notice, no case is disclosed or the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction. The taxing statute also provided a statutory framework for raising objections and pursuing remedies.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the show cause notice.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ jurisdiction should be exercised in favour of the petitioner despite suppression of material facts and the availability of statutory remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had not placed the full and relevant factual background before the Court, including earlier and pending proceedings bearing on the same controversy. The Court treated this as suppression of vital facts going to the root of the matter. It further held that discretionary relief under Article 226 should not be granted where the petitioner approaches the Court without candour and where an effective statutory remedy remains available.

Conclusion: Discretionary relief under Article 226 was declined and the challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to interfere with the impugned notice, left the petitioner to work out its objections before the competent authority, and dismissed the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be exercised to quash a show cause notice where statutory remedies are available, and relief under Article 226 may be declined where the petitioner suppresses material facts or approaches the Court without clean hands.

---