https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112494 A writ petition under Article 226 challenging a FERA show-cause notice for alleged vagueness was held not maintainable at the threshold. Although a show-cause notice must contain adequate foundational facts and a vague notice in quasi-judicial penalty proceedings may be vulnerable, the Court applied binding Supreme Court guidance that, in FERA matters, noticees should ordinarily answer before the adjudicating authority and pursue statutory remedies if aggrieved. Interference is warranted only where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112494 A writ petition under Article 226 challenging a FERA show-cause notice for alleged vagueness was held not maintainable at the threshold. Although a show-cause notice must contain adequate foundational facts and a vague notice in quasi-judicial penalty proceedings may be vulnerable, the Court applied binding Supreme Court guidance that, in FERA matters, noticees should ordinarily answer before the adjudicating authority and pursue statutory remedies if aggrieved. Interference is warranted only where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction. The challenge to the notice therefore failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112494