Writ interference with show cause notices is limited where limitation and jurisdiction turn on disputed facts in service tax matters.

A writ court should ordinarily not interfere with a show cause notice where the plea of limitation depends on a disputed allegation of evasion of service tax. An allegation of evasion can attract the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, but whether such evasion is made out is a factual question. Because that factual dispute also goes to the merits of the proceedings, it is not normally examined under Article 226. The petitioner was directed to raise all objections, including limitation and jurisdiction, before the issuing authority for decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should interfere with the show cause notice on the grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction arising from the allegation of evasion of service tax.

Analysis: The notice referred to an alleged attempt to evade payment of service tax, attracting the extended limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Whether the allegation of evasion is correct would require a factual enquiry. Such disputed factual questions, especially when also relevant to the merits of the proceedings, are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was therefore directed to place its objections before the issuing authority, including all pleas on limitation and jurisdiction, for consideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The court declined to interfere with the show cause notice and left the petitioner to respond before the authority, which must first decide the question of limitation and the resulting jurisdictional issue.

---