Writ interference with fiscal show-cause notices is exceptional; notice stayed pending clarification on post-GST circular applicability.

Writ interference with a fiscal show-cause notice is reserved for rare exceptions such as lack of jurisdiction, mala fides, predetermination, or reopening of a settled position, and the alternate-remedy rule applies with particular rigour in tax matters. The Court found no recognised ground to quash the notice and declined to treat the challenge as falling within any exceptional category. However, because the dispute turned on whether the drawback circular applied after GST, the notice was kept in abeyance for eight weeks while the competent Board was directed to issue clarification on the circular's post-GST applicability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with and quash a show-cause notice in fiscal matters and, if not, whether the notice could be kept in abeyance pending clarification on the applicability of the relevant circular in the post-GST regime.

Analysis: Writ interference with a show-cause notice is ordinarily disfavoured and is reserved for rare and exceptional cases, such as lack of jurisdiction, reopening of a settled position, predetermination, or mala fides. In fiscal matters, the rule of alternate remedy is to be applied with particular rigour, and the Court found that the case did not fall within any recognised exception warranting quashing of the notice. At the same time, the controversy centred on whether the circular governing drawback applied after the GST regime, and the Court accepted a course whereby the competent Board would issue a clarification within a fixed time.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was not quashed, but was kept in abeyance for eight weeks, during which clarification on the circular's post-GST applicability was directed to be issued.

---