Show cause notices can be quashed in writ jurisdiction when they fail to plead essential statutory ingredients for penal action.

Writ interference with show cause notices is permissible where the notices are wholly without jurisdiction or, on their face, fail to disclose the statutory ingredients for the proposed penal action. The Bombay HC held that the notices here did not allege that the petitioners, acting as auditors, acquired, possessed, or otherwise dealt with excisable goods with the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that they were liable to confiscation under Section 9(1)(bbb) and Rule 209A. Subsequent affidavits could not cure those jurisdictional defects. The notices were therefore quashed as non est, and the petitioners were not required to undergo departmental adjudication on defective notices.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions against the show cause notices were maintainable despite availability of departmental adjudication; (ii) Whether the notices disclosed the ingredients necessary to invoke penal action under Section 9(1)(bbb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions against the show cause notices were maintainable despite availability of departmental adjudication.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is ordinarily a reason for judicial restraint at the stage of show cause notice, but that rule is not absolute. Where the notice is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction or, even on assumed facts, does not disclose a case against the noticee, writ interference is permissible. Once the Court found that the notices were fundamentally defective, relegating the petitioners to adjudication was not justified.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the notices disclosed the ingredients necessary to invoke penal action under Section 9(1)(bbb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The statutory provisions require that the person must acquire possession of, or otherwise deal with, excisable goods while knowing or having reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The notices did not allege that the petitioners, as auditors, had handled or dealt with the excisable goods in the manner contemplated by the provisions, nor did they plead the necessary knowledge or reason to believe. Additional material by affidavit could not cure the defects in the notices.

Conclusion: The notices failed to satisfy the statutory requirements and were non est.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show cause notices were set aside because they did not disclose the jurisdictional facts or statutory ingredients needed for penal action, and the petitioners were not required to face adjudication on such defective notices.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice can be quashed in writ jurisdiction where the admitted allegations do not disclose the essential statutory ingredients for the proposed action, and the defect cannot be cured by subsequent affidavits or supplementary material.

---