Writ challenge to fiscal show cause notice rejected where statutory remedy remained available and no jurisdictional defect was shown.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to challenge a fiscal show cause notice when statutory remedies remain available, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction, a pure question of law, or a clear violation of natural justice. The Court held that the challenge to the revisional notice failed because the assessee had not first responded to the notice, the notice was issued within the six-year revisional period, and the objection based on preservation of books of account was premature where revision would proceed on the existing assessment record. The assessee was therefore required to pursue the statutory process before the revisional authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging a show cause notice proposing revision of a remand assessment order was maintainable in view of the availability of statutory remedies and whether the notice suffered from lack of jurisdiction, limitation, or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The petition was directed against a show cause notice issued under the revisional power under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, while the assessee had not first replied to the notice or pursued the ordinary statutory process. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked to short-circuit fiscal remedies, especially at the stage of a show cause notice, unless there is a pure question of law, patent lack of jurisdiction, or a clear violation of natural justice. On the facts, the challenge that the notice was barred because books of account need not be preserved beyond eight years was rejected, since the notice itself did not seek fresh material and the respondents clarified that revision would proceed on the existing assessment record. The limitation objection also failed because the revisional notice was issued within the six-year period provided for revision of the remand assessment order. The Court further held that the alleged illegality or impropriety in the remand assessment order could not be examined at the threshold through writ proceedings, as the revisional authority had yet to determine the matter on the assessee's reply.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and the challenge to the show cause notice was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee was relegated to respond to the revisional notice and pursue the statutory process, with liberty to raise all objections before the revisional authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained against a fiscal show cause notice when an effective statutory remedy remains available, unless the notice discloses a clear jurisdictional defect, pure question of law, or violation of natural justice.

---