Writ jurisdiction and statutory revision: challenge to a show cause notice was rejected at the notice stage.
A writ petition under Article 226 challenging a show cause notice initiating suo motu revision was not maintainable at the notice stage because an effective statutory revisional remedy existed and the revisional authority was not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked before the authority has considered the party's objections, absent a clear case of total lack of jurisdiction or fundamental breach of natural justice. The petitioners were left free to raise all factual and legal objections before the revisional authority, which was directed to decide the revision expeditiously after hearing them.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice initiating suo motu revision of the refund order was maintainable under Article 226 in view of the statutory revisional remedy and absence of any case of total lack of jurisdiction.
Analysis: The petition was directed against a show cause notice at a stage where the petitioners had not yet replied. The revisional authority acted under section 59 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 read with the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and therefore could not be said to be wholly without jurisdiction. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked when an effective statutory remedy is available, especially at the notice stage, unless a clear exceptional case such as total lack of jurisdiction or a fundamental breach of natural justice is shown. The petitioners were left free to place all objections before the revisional authority, including their contention that the revision lacked factual foundation.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable at the show cause notice stage and was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to contest the revision before the competent authority.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the parties to work out the statutory revisional process, while directing the revisional authority to decide the matter expeditiously after hearing the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 should ordinarily not be entertained against a show cause notice when an efficacious statutory remedy is available and the authority is not shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
