https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106576 A writ petition challenging a show-cause notice under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was treated as premature because the petitioners could raise all objections before the competent authority. Allegations of vagueness, absence of a prima facie case, lack of nexus, prior forfeiture, mala fides, and want of jurisdiction were held to be matters that could be urged in reply to the notice. No exceptional jurisdictional defect or substantiated case of mala fides was shown to justify bypassing the statutory process. The court therefore declined interference at the notice stage and required the petitioners to submit their objections to the authority. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:42:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106576 A writ petition challenging a show-cause notice under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 was treated as premature because the petitioners could raise all objections before the competent authority. Allegations of vagueness, absence of a prima facie case, lack of nexus, prior forfeiture, mala fides, and want of jurisdiction were held to be matters that could be urged in reply to the notice. No exceptional jurisdictional defect or substantiated case of mala fides was shown to justify bypassing the statutory process. The court therefore declined interference at the notice stage and required the petitioners to submit their objections to the authority. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106576