Writ of prohibition is unavailable at the show-cause stage absent clear lack of jurisdiction on the face of the record.

A writ of prohibition cannot be used to halt excise proceedings at the show-cause stage when the authority is still determining jurisdictional facts and the correct valuation basis. Because the dispute depended on the agreements with purchasers, the nature of the transactions, and factual examination under excise law, and no inherent lack or excess of jurisdiction was shown on the face of the record, judicial interference was unwarranted. The writ was therefore not maintainable, and the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued at the show-cause stage to prevent the excise authorities from proceeding further on the basis of notices proposing demand of duty and penalty.

Analysis: The dispute turned on factual matters requiring examination of the agreements with the purchasers, the nature of the transactions, and the correct basis for valuation under the excise law. Those matters had not yet been investigated by the authorities because the assessee had approached the court immediately after the show-cause notices. A writ of prohibition is not appropriate where the authority is acting within its jurisdiction and is only at the stage of determining jurisdictional facts. In the absence of any demonstrated lack or excess of jurisdiction, or any contravention of law established at that stage, judicial interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ of prohibition was not maintainable and the appeals succeeded, leaving the authorities free to continue the proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition cannot be issued to stop statutory proceedings at the fact-finding stage unless inherent lack or excess of jurisdiction is shown on the face of the record.

---