Writ interference with show cause notice refused where limitation and service exemption depended on disputed facts.

Writ interference with a show cause notice was declined because the objections raised turned on disputed facts, including alleged suppression or misstatement and whether the underlying service was exempt. The court treated limitation and exemption as matters requiring factual determination by the notice-issuing authority, not issues suitable for writ review at the notice stage. On that basis, the challenge to the notice was rejected and the notice was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court ought to interfere with the show cause notice on the grounds that the notice was barred by limitation and that the service rendered was an exempted service.

Analysis: The questions raised involved disputed facts, including whether there was suppression or misstatement and whether the service rendered by the appellant was exempt. Such matters required adjudication by the authority issuing the notice and were not fit for interference in writ jurisdiction at the notice stage.

Conclusion: The refusal to interdict the show cause notice was upheld, and the challenge was rejected.

---