https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43469 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to stop pending statutory show cause proceedings for confiscation and penalty where no adverse adjudication has yet been made. Because the notices required the petitioners to explain why their trucks should not be confiscated and penalty imposed, and the dispute depended on investigation of facts and appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that the challenge was premature. The petitioners were left to respond before the competent authority, and the Court declined to interfere at the threshold. en-us Thu, 06 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:17:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43469 Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be used to stop pending statutory show cause proceedings for confiscation and penalty where no adverse adjudication has yet been made. Because the notices required the petitioners to explain why their trucks should not be confiscated and penalty imposed, and the dispute depended on investigation of facts and appreciation of evidence, the High Court held that the challenge was premature. The petitioners were left to respond before the competent authority, and the Court declined to interfere at the threshold. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43469