Limitation in show cause notices cannot be decided at writ stage where seized records require factual adjudication.

Madras HC held that show cause notices issued after search and seizure based on specific intelligence could not be quashed at the writ stage on a limitation plea. Limitation was a mixed question of fact and law because whether the demands were time barred depended on facts emerging from the seized materials and other circumstances requiring examination by the competent authority. Since factual adjudication was necessary, interference at the notice stage was unwarranted. The single Judge's order was set aside and the challenge to the notices failed, leaving the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices were liable to be quashed at the writ stage on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The notices were issued after search and seizure of records based on specific intelligence, and the question whether the demands were time barred depended upon the facts emerging from the seized materials. Limitation in the present context was a mixed question of fact and law and could not be decided summarily without adjudication by the competent authority. Interference at the stage of show cause notice was therefore unwarranted.

Conclusion: The notices were not liable to be quashed on limitation at the writ stage.

Final Conclusion: The order of the single Judge was set aside and the challenge to the show cause notices failed, leaving the adjudicating authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should not quash a show cause notice on limitation where the issue requires factual adjudication and the notice is supported by seized material and other circumstances requiring examination by the statutory authority.

---