1995 (2) TMI 69 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional validity of show-cause notices under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Proper forum for addressing grievances against statutory authorities.
3. Applicability of writ jurisdiction in tax assessment matters.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 seeking to quash show-cause notices issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The petitioner, a manufacturer, had claimed exemption under a specific notification but was alleged to have contravened various provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the notices, while the respondents argued that the petitioner should address objections before the adjudicating authority rather than the High Court. The respondents cited a previous order where the court declined interference in a similar case involving a show-cause notice.

The counsel for the respondents referred to Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that statutory forums should be the primary avenue for redressal of grievances, and High Courts should not entertain matters that fall within the purview of such forums. The judgment highlighted the need to respect the statutory provisions and avoid circumventing the established procedures. The court cited precedents to support the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be used as a blanket solution for all legal issues, urging caution in exercising extraordinary writ powers.

Based on the legal and factual similarities with a previous case, the court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, indicating that the petition should follow the same course. The judgment directed the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notices before the appropriate authority, allowing for objections and legal contestation. The authority was instructed to make a decision promptly and communicate it to the petitioner. If the outcome was unfavorable, the petitioner was granted the freedom to pursue further remedies. The court disposed of the petition without costs, revoked the interim stay order, and ordered the refund of security costs to the petitioner. Certified copies of the judgment were to be provided to both parties.