Questioned audit material and jurisdiction did not invalidate the notice; limitation remained for factual determination.

Relevant material does not become unusable merely because it was gathered through an audit later questioned as unauthorised; the court held that relevance, not the manner of procurement alone, governs admissibility, so the challenge to the show-cause notice on that basis failed. The Principal Commissioner who issued the notice was not shown to lack statutory authority, as administrative assignment of audit work did not divest the officer of primary power to issue the notice, so the jurisdiction objection also failed. The limitation plea raised a mixed question of fact and law and was therefore not decided at the writ stage, leaving it to the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notice could be invalidated on the ground that it was founded on material gathered during an audit said to be unauthorised after the rule enabling such audit was held ultra vires. (ii) Whether the Principal Commissioner who issued the show-cause notice lacked jurisdiction or authority to do so. (iii) Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the writ stage.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notice could be invalidated on the ground that it was founded on material gathered during an audit said to be unauthorised after the rule enabling such audit was held ultra vires.

Analysis: A statute or rule is not treated as void until it is judicially declared so. The fact that material may have been collected in an unauthorised manner does not, by itself, render it inadmissible in India. The governing principle is that relevant material may be acted upon even if the manner of its procurement is questioned, so long as relevance is established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notice on the basis of the source of the material was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Principal Commissioner who issued the show-cause notice lacked jurisdiction or authority to do so.

Analysis: The officer who issued the notice held the rank of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and had merely been assigned audit work for administrative convenience. Such assignment did not divest the officer of the statutory power to issue the notice in the exercise of primary authority.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the plea of limitation could be decided at the writ stage.

Analysis: The question of limitation depended on factual examination and involved a mixed question of fact and law. It was therefore inappropriate for determination in the writ proceedings at that stage.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was left for decision by the competent authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the impugned notice was left to be answered before the statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Relevant material does not become unusable merely because it was obtained in a questioned manner, and a writ court will not decide a fact-intensive limitation issue or unsettle a notice issued by an officer otherwise vested with statutory authority.

---