https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226175 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked to quash a show cause notice issued under a taxing statute where the noticee can raise objections before the competent authority and pursue statutory remedies. Interference is justified only if the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction or discloses no case on its face. The Court also treated suppression of material facts and lack of candour, including non-disclosure of related proceedings, as reasons to refuse discretionary relief. Because an effective statutory remedy remained available and the petitioner had not approached with full disclosure, the writ challenge was rejected and the petitioner was left to work out its objections before the authority. en-us Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226175 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not invoked to quash a show cause notice issued under a taxing statute where the noticee can raise objections before the competent authority and pursue statutory remedies. Interference is justified only if the notice is ex facie without jurisdiction or discloses no case on its face. The Court also treated suppression of material facts and lack of candour, including non-disclosure of related proceedings, as reasons to refuse discretionary relief. Because an effective statutory remedy remained available and the petitioner had not approached with full disclosure, the writ challenge was rejected and the petitioner was left to work out its objections before the authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=226175