https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782561 A writ court should not interfere with a show-cause notice under Article 226 unless the notice is a nullity or has been issued without jurisdiction. Here, the impugned communication was treated as a valid show-cause notice requiring appearance and reply, and it was issued by the competent authority under Section 182(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Because no jurisdictional defect was shown and the petitioner had an opportunity to respond before the authority, interference was declined and the challenge to the notice was held not maintainable. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:35:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782561 A writ court should not interfere with a show-cause notice under Article 226 unless the notice is a nullity or has been issued without jurisdiction. Here, the impugned communication was treated as a valid show-cause notice requiring appearance and reply, and it was issued by the competent authority under Section 182(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. Because no jurisdictional defect was shown and the petitioner had an opportunity to respond before the authority, interference was declined and the challenge to the notice was held not maintainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782561