Writ interference with show-cause notices is exceptional; factual disputes under a concessional notification must first be decided by the authority.

Interference with a show-cause notice under writ jurisdiction is exceptional and is generally unavailable unless the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction, the proceedings are a nullity, or the authority has already conclusively pre-decided the matter. Where the notice is only tentative and factual adjudication is required, the recipient must ordinarily reply before the authority. The text also states that a circular prescribing procedure will not ordinarily be treated as restricting a statutory notification unless a clear conflict or patent illegality is shown. Questions on the scope of a concessional notification and the use of diesel in transport activity were said to require factual and statutory examination by the assessing authority first.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was maintainable at the threshold on the ground that the authority had already made up its mind or lacked jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the circular dated 02.01.2018 could be said to restrict or run contrary to the notification dated 29.12.2017 so as to justify interference under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was maintainable at the threshold on the ground that the authority had already made up its mind or lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: Interference with a show-cause notice in writ jurisdiction is exceptional. A notice may be quashed only where it is ex facie without jurisdiction, where the proceedings are a nullity, or where the authority has conclusively pre-decided the matter. Where factual adjudication is required, and the notice is only tentative, the recipient must ordinarily submit a reply and urge objections before the authority. On the facts here, the notice reflected only a tentative view and did not show that the authority had irrevocably determined the issue.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the threshold on this ground, and the challenge to the notice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the circular dated 02.01.2018 could be said to restrict or run contrary to the notification dated 29.12.2017 so as to justify interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The notification issued under the statutory power enabled a concessional rate for specified diesel sales for use in the process of manufacture of taxable goods. The circular only prescribed procedure and, on its plain reading, did not expressly exclude other uses or demonstrably curtail the notification. The dispute whether the assessee's use of diesel in transport activity fell within the notification's scope involved interpretation of the notification and factual examination, which were matters for the assessing authority in the first instance.

Conclusion: No patent illegality or clear conflict between the circular and the notification was established, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The intra-court appeal failed because the order relegating the assessee to respond to the show-cause notice disclosed no patent illegality and the disputed entitlement under the notification had to be examined by the assessing authority first.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not interfere with a show-cause notice unless the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction, wholly pre-decisional, or the issue turns only on admitted facts; questions requiring factual and statutory examination must first be left to the authority issuing the notice.

---