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 show cause notice issued under the central excise law was without jurisdiction for want of material, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: A writ petition can be maintained against a notice issued without jurisdiction, but the threshold is not met merely because the assessee disputes the sufficiency of the material relied upon. The relevant inquiry is whether some factual foundation exists in the notice for invoking the statutory power, including the extended limitation under Section 11A. Where the notice records the statutory ingredients and is based on some material, the adequacy or correctness of that material is for the authority to examine in the proceedings on the notice and not for summary interference at the stage of issuance.
Conclusion: The notice was not shown to be without jurisdiction, and interference under Article 226 was not warranted.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected because the challenge went only to the sufficiency and appreciation of material, which could be pursued before the departmental authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice is not liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction merely on a dispute about the adequacy of evidence if the notice discloses a statutory foundation and some material for the proposed action.