Writ interference against a tax show cause notice is unwarranted when disputed facts and statutory remedies remain open.

A writ court should not interfere at the show cause notice stage in a taxation dispute where the controversy depends on disputed facts, including product nature, process undertaken, tariff classification and exemption entitlement. Because the notice was issued within jurisdiction, no final adjudication had been made, and the assessee could reply before the authority and pursue statutory remedies, invocation of Article 226 was not appropriate at the threshold. Interference was therefore declined and the assessee was directed to place objections before the departmental authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court should interfere with a show cause notice in a taxation matter when the controversy turns on disputed questions of fact and the assessee has an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was directed only against a show cause notice alleging multiple contraventions under the Central Excise law and calling for an explanation before adjudication. The controversy required examination of factual matters such as the nature of the fabrics, the process undertaken, the applicable tariff classification, and the availability of exemption. The Court held that such matters are for the departmental authorities to examine in the first instance, especially when the notice was within the authority's jurisdiction and no final determination had yet been made. The existence of statutory remedies and the availability of a reply to the notice weighed against invocation of writ jurisdiction at the threshold.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was not warranted and the writ appeal failed. The assessee was required to submit objections before the authority and pursue the statutory remedy.

---