Writ interference against a pending show-cause notice was declined where EPCG misuse allegations required first-instance adjudication.

A writ petition under Article 226 challenging suspension of the extended export obligation period under the EPCG framework was not entertained because a show-cause notice on alleged misuse of export documents and non-fulfilment of export obligation was still pending. The Court held that judicial interference at that stage would prematurely examine the merits of the notice, and that disputed jurisdictional facts and allegations of fraud should first be determined by the competent authority unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction. The challenge to restoration of the extended period therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained to quash the suspension of the export obligation period and to restrain coercive action when a show-cause notice on alleged misuse of the EPCG scheme was pending.

Analysis: The petitioner sought interference under Article 226 against the communication suspending the extended export obligation period granted under the EPCG framework. The Court noted that the suspension followed non-compliance with directions to produce the original EPCG authorisation and arose in the context of DRI inputs and a pending show-cause notice alleging fraudulent use of export documents and non-fulfilment of export obligation. The Court held that entertaining the petition at that stage would amount to examining the merits of the show-cause notice prematurely. It emphasised that where statutory proceedings are pending and the authority is yet to adjudicate the allegations, judicial interference is ordinarily unwarranted unless the notice is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the suspension and the request for restoration of the extended export obligation period were not entertained, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained to stall or pre-empt adjudication of a pending show-cause notice, particularly where disputed jurisdictional facts and alleged misuse of a statutory export incentive scheme require determination by the competent authority in the first instance.

---