https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72215 A writ petition under Article 226 was held to be premature where it sought to quash excise show cause notices before the assessee had replied and before statutory adjudication and appeals were pursued. The Bombay HC reiterated that the excise framework operates as a complete code, so writ jurisdiction should not bypass the ordinary assessment and recovery process. Interference at the notice stage is confined to exceptional cases, such as a clear want of jurisdiction or a breach of fundamental justice, and no such ground was shown. The court also noted that the assessee had approached the writ court without first placing the relevant facts before the departmental authority, so the petition was dismissed. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72215 A writ petition under Article 226 was held to be premature where it sought to quash excise show cause notices before the assessee had replied and before statutory adjudication and appeals were pursued. The Bombay HC reiterated that the excise framework operates as a complete code, so writ jurisdiction should not bypass the ordinary assessment and recovery process. Interference at the notice stage is confined to exceptional cases, such as a clear want of jurisdiction or a breach of fundamental justice, and no such ground was shown. The court also noted that the assessee had approached the writ court without first placing the relevant facts before the departmental authority, so the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72215