Writ jurisdiction against excise show cause notice barred where the statute provides adjudication and appeal remedies.

A writ petition under Article 226 was treated as not maintainable against a show cause notice issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act because the statute provided an adjudicatory mechanism and appellate remedies. Interference at the notice stage was viewed as improper where the legislature had created a complete statutory process for reply, adjudication, and appeal. The petitioner was therefore directed to pursue the statutory remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a show cause notice issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act when the statute provides an adjudicatory forum and appellate remedies.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Central Excises and Salt Act provides for adjudication by the proper authority and subsequent appeals. Interference at the stage of a show cause notice would amount to bypassing the remedy created by the statute. The availability of a complete statutory mechanism weighed against the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held not maintainable and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the reply and adjudication process under the statutory remedy.

---