Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notices for confiscation and penalty was maintainable at the stage when no adverse order had yet been passed.
Analysis: The notices called upon the petitioners to explain why their trucks should not be confiscated under the Customs Act as applied through the Central Excises and Salt Act, and why penalty should not be imposed under the Central Excise Rules. The controversy depended on investigation of facts and appreciation of evidence, matters which were inappropriate for determination in writ jurisdiction at the threshold. The petitioners had approached the Court before replying to the notices, and no adjudicatory order adverse to them had yet been made. In such circumstances, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to obstruct the statutory process.
Conclusion: The writ challenge to the notices was premature and not entertainable at that stage; the petition was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined interference under Article 226 and left the petitioners to respond to the statutory notices before the competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to halt pending statutory show cause proceedings, especially where the dispute turns on disputed facts and no adverse adjudication has yet been made.