Writ interference with show-cause notices is limited where statutory adjudication is still pending and jurisdiction is not plainly absent.

A writ court should not ordinarily interfere with a show-cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because the notice is only a proposal to initiate adjudication and no liability is determined at that stage. The power to issue notice extends to cases involving alleged suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and the authority must decide the duty only after considering the assessee's response. Interference in writ proceedings is justified only where there is an apparent lack of jurisdiction on a pure question of law; where the objection is fact-dependent, the statutory adjudicatory process and alternative remedies should be followed. The notice was held to be within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere at the stage of a show-cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice.

Analysis: The notice was only a proposal to initiate adjudication and no liability had yet been determined. The statutory scheme under Section 11A empowered the Collector to issue notice in cases involving suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, and to determine the duty after considering the assessee's representation. The Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass the statutory procedure or alternative remedies, especially where the objection depends on facts and is not a case of patent want of jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage is justified only where there is an apparent lack of jurisdiction on a pure question of law.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was within jurisdiction and the writ petition was not maintainable at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: A show-cause notice issued under a statute should not ordinarily be quashed in writ proceedings when the authority is empowered to act and the challenge does not disclose an apparent lack of jurisdiction on a pure question of law.

---