Show cause notice challenge: writ interference is justified when a concluded classification dispute is reopened without jurisdiction.

Writ interference at the show cause notice stage is exceptional and is justified only where lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is prima facie shown. The Court found that the High Court could intervene because the notice appeared to repeat a dispute already conclusively decided in earlier litigation. Since the classification of the products as Ayurvedic medicines had been finally determined, the later notice merely sought to reopen the same issue without a new legal or factual basis. The notice was therefore unsustainable, and the quashing of the notice was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of law; (ii) Whether the impugned show cause notice merely attempted to reopen a classification issue already concluded by earlier decisions and was therefore unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere at the stage of a show cause notice on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and an abuse of process of law.

Analysis: Interference at the stage of a show cause notice is exceptional and ordinarily the parties must be left to place their case before the adjudicating authority. Such interference is justified only where lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is prima facie established, and not where factual adjudication is required. On the facts, the Court found that the writ court had considered the long history of litigation and the settled position emerging from prior adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ court was justified in interfering, as the notice disclosed a prima facie attempt to proceed without jurisdiction and in abuse of process of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned show cause notice merely attempted to reopen a classification issue already concluded by earlier decisions and was therefore unsustainable.

Analysis: The classification of the respondent's products as Ayurvedic medicines had already been conclusively determined in earlier litigation between the parties. The later notice substantially repeated the earlier notices with only minor variations and sought to reopen the same issue without a different legal or factual foundation. The Court held that the department had no warrant to relitigate a matter already concluded by binding judicial determinations.

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice was unsustainable because it sought to reopen a concluded classification dispute.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the show cause notice quashed by the High Court was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice may be quashed in writ jurisdiction where it is a mere repetition of a matter already finally concluded by binding decisions and its issuance amounts to an abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction; otherwise, courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering at the notice stage.

---