Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the revenue from proceeding with a show cause notice alleging irregular availment of DTA concession and inflated export sales, and whether the notice was liable to be interfered with at the threshold as being without jurisdiction or barred on the facts.
Analysis: The challenge was directed against a show cause notice and turned substantially on disputed factual questions, including the correctness of the export/value addition calculations and the alleged eligibility for concessional DTA clearances under the exemption notification. The availability of the writ remedy against a mere notice was tested against the settled principle that such interference is exceptional and is warranted only where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise plainly illegal. As the alleged irregularity required factual adjudication by the competent authority, the Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory adjudication process. The cited authorities on interference with show cause notices were distinguished on facts, as those matters had already been adjudicated through the statutory hierarchy.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and the Court declined to prohibit the respondent from proceeding with adjudication of the show cause notice.