Writ jurisdiction over show cause notices is limited when disputed service-tax classification requires factual adjudication.

A writ petition against a show cause notice will not ordinarily be entertained when the notice is issued by a competent authority and no mala fides or patent lack of jurisdiction is shown. The Court noted that the notices did not tax transmission or distribution of electricity itself, but alleged taxability of specific services such as works contract, rent-a-cab, manpower supply, goods transport agency and legal consultancy. As the dispute turned on classification and other factual questions requiring departmental adjudication on documents and evidence, the negative list argument was not a basis for interference at the threshold. The writ petitions were dismissed, leaving the notices to be adjudicated by the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notices were maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and whether the notices could be interfered with on the premise that the disputed levies related to transmission and distribution of electricity falling within the negative list.

Analysis: A writ against a show cause notice is ordinarily not entertained unless the notice is issued by an incompetent authority or is vitiated by mala fides. The notices in question did not demand service tax on transmission or distribution of electricity as such, but only on specified services such as works contract, rent-a-cab, manpower supply, goods transport agency and legal consultancy services, which were alleged to be taxable and not covered by the statutory exemption. The controversy raised by the petitioner involved disputed factual questions and the correctness of the classification of the services, all of which required adjudication by the departmental authority on the basis of documents and evidence. The contention based on the negative list and ancillary services was therefore not a ground for interdiction at the threshold in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notices was rejected and the writ petitions were held not maintainable at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The notices were left to be adjudicated by the competent authority after hearing the petitioners, and the petitions were dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy after final orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition will not normally lie against a show cause notice where the notice is issued by a competent authority and the issues raised require adjudication on disputed facts, particularly when the notice does not on its face seek to tax an exempt activity but only specific allegedly taxable services.

---