Alternative statutory remedy bars writ challenge to a show cause notice before excise adjudication.

A writ petition challenging a show cause notice was held premature because the petitioner had not first replied before the competent excise authority. The Court applied the settled rule that where a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked at the notice stage. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits. The petitioner was given liberty to file a reply, the authority was directed to pass a speaking order, and recovery was kept in abeyance until that decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notice was premature in view of the statutory remedy available under the central excise law.

Analysis: The petitioner approached the Court at the stage of a show cause notice without first submitting a reply or allowing the competent authority to decide the matter. The Court applied the well-settled rule that where a statute provides a complete machinery for redress, the party must ordinarily pursue that remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of this alternative remedy, the challenge to the notice was not entertained on merits. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to file a reply and the authority was directed to pass a speaking order, with recovery kept in abeyance until then.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and was not maintainable at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: When an efficacious statutory remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked against a show cause notice before the statutory authority has adjudicated the matter.

---