1996 (9) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice dated 24/25-2-1986 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Allegation of discrimination in taxation compared to other companies.
3. Jurisdiction of the writ court in adjudicating on factual disputes.
4. Applicability of writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 or 227 in taxation matters.
5. Proper forum for contesting matters under relevant Acts.
6. Interpretation of "show cause notices" and jurisdictional issues.
7. Role of the writ court in testing orders of assessment under Tax laws.
8. Exercise of extraordinary and discretionary power under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a show cause notice dated 24/25-2-1986 issued by the Collector under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing office equipment, alleged discrimination in taxation compared to other companies like Remington and Godrej. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the show cause notice and the jurisdiction of the writ court in adjudicating on factual disputes. The petitioner argued that the notice was without jurisdiction and discriminatory, seeking to produce documents showing tax recovery from other companies for comparison.

The court emphasized that a writ court is not the appropriate forum for adjudicating on factual disputes and that if a more satisfactory solution is available under the relevant statute, resorting to Art. 226 or 227 through a writ petition is not the proper remedy. The judgment highlighted the need for authorities to function responsibly and explore alternatives before taking avoidable steps. It referenced previous rulings emphasizing that orders of assessment under Tax laws should be tested under the relevant Act and not through writ jurisdiction unless no other satisfactory solution is available under the statute.

The court declined to examine the validity of the show cause notice in detail, noting that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were distinguishable, and exceptional circumstances were lacking. The judgment concluded with directions allowing the petitioners to submit replies to the notice, raise jurisdictional and discrimination pleas, and apply for requisition of records from other companies for proper disposal of the matter. The petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, but counsel fees were fixed, and security costs were subject to refund after verification. The judgment underscored the importance of uniformity in law and the need for caution in exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction powers.