Limitation under excise law can void penalty proceedings and still permit writ relief despite alternative remedies.

Section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was treated as barring proceedings initiated after six months from the accrual of the cause of action or the impugned act, so a show-cause notice issued beyond that period rendered the penalty process time-barred and the resulting order without jurisdiction. The note also states that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief where the impugned order was void ab initio, and the doctrine of merger could not cure an inherent jurisdictional defect. On that basis, the penalty order was quashed in writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty order was without jurisdiction because the show-cause notice was issued beyond the six-month limitation under section 40(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the availability of alternative statutory remedies or the appellate order created any bar to writ relief.

Analysis: Section 40(2) bars institution of any suit, prosecution, or other legal proceeding after six months from the accrual of the cause of action or the date of the act or order complained of. The cause of action arose when the departmental inspection took place, and the show-cause notice was issued long after the expiry of six months. The proceeding initiating penalty was therefore time-barred and the resultant order suffered from want of jurisdiction. The availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude writ intervention because the impugned order was void ab initio. The doctrine of merger also could not validate an order that was inherently void, and an appellate or revisional process could not cure the jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed; the writ remedy was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy and the plea of merger.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted certiorari and set aside the penalty order on the ground that proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory limitation, leaving the assessee entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory proceeding is initiated after the expiry of a mandatory limitation period and the authority lacks jurisdiction to act, the resulting order is void ab initio and can be quashed in writ jurisdiction despite the existence of alternative remedies or appellate confirmation.

---