Inherent powers to stay proceedings are exceptional and cannot be invoked merely because a later notice arises from similar facts.

The Tribunal recognised that it has inherent powers to stay proceedings in exceptional cases, but only where intervention is needed to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Applying that standard, it declined to restrain a later show cause notice because identical issues were not established, the fresh proceedings were at an early stage, and the appellants had not yet filed a reply; the request for stay was therefore refused, leaving procedural relief to be pursued in the pending appeal if delay arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should exercise its inherent powers to stay further proceedings pursuant to a subsequent show cause notice on the ground that it arose from the same facts as the earlier proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that it possessed inherent powers in appropriate cases, but held that such powers are exceptional and must be used only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. On the facts, the subsequent show cause notice was not shown to involve identical issues, the proceedings were at an initial stage, and the appellants had yet to file a reply. The Tribunal found no basis to interfere at that stage or to halt the fresh proceedings.

Conclusion: The request to stay the further proceedings was refused, and the application was rejected against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to restrain the departmental proceedings initiated by the later show cause notice and left the appellants to pursue procedural relief in the pending appeal if delay occurred.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent powers to stay proceedings can be exercised only in exceptional cases where necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not merely because a later notice is alleged to arise from similar facts.

---