Writ interference at show cause stage refused where limitation and jurisdiction depended on disputed excise facts.

A writ petition challenging a show cause notice was held not maintainable where the excise statute provided a complete adjudicatory and appellate framework, so the assessee was required to pursue statutory remedies first. The Court further found that a limitation objection did not, by itself, establish absence of jurisdiction because invocation of the extended period depended on disputed factual questions such as suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement, which had to be examined by the departmental authorities in the first instance. The challenge to the notice therefore failed at the threshold and the parties were left to the statutory proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies. (ii) Whether the notice was without jurisdiction on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate and adjudicatory remedies.

Analysis: The availability of a complete hierarchy of remedies under the excise law ordinarily requires the assessee to pursue the statutory forum rather than invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction at the threshold. The Court also held that a plea styled as one of lack of jurisdiction does not automatically justify bypassing the statutory machinery where the question depends upon factual inquiry and the notice does not, on its face, disclose an absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at this stage and the assessee was relegated to the statutory remedies.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice was without jurisdiction on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Court held that a limitation objection in excise proceedings does not by itself amount to a case of initial lack of jurisdiction. Whether the extended period could be invoked depended on factual matters such as suppression, fraud, or wilful misstatement, which required examination by the departmental authorities in the first instance. On the materials before it, the Court found that no clear case of limitation barring the proceedings could be predicated straightaway.

Conclusion: The limitation plea did not establish want of jurisdiction and was left to be decided in the statutory proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, left the parties to the remedies under the excise statute, and the challenge to the show cause notice failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court should ordinarily not interfere at the show cause stage where the objection depends on disputed facts and a statutory adjudicatory and appellate framework is available; a limitation plea does not, by itself, oust jurisdiction.

---