https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45012 A writ petition challenging a show cause notice was held premature because the petitioner had not first replied before the competent excise authority. The Court applied the settled rule that where a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked at the notice stage. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits. The petitioner was given liberty to file a reply, the authority was directed to pass a speaking order, and recovery was kept in abeyance until that decision. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45012 A writ petition challenging a show cause notice was held premature because the petitioner had not first replied before the competent excise authority. The Court applied the settled rule that where a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be invoked at the notice stage. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits. The petitioner was given liberty to file a reply, the authority was directed to pass a speaking order, and recovery was kept in abeyance until that decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45012