- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Sri P. R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashistha, Assistant Solici tor General for respondents no. 1 and 3. Sri J. R Joshi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2. They are heard.
(2.) THE petitioner Company has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs "a. to issue a writ or order in the na ture of certiorari quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-2005 (Annexure - VII) issued by respondent no. 3 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 6,31,16,456. 00 should not be recovered for the period Sep tember 2004 to 9-11 -2004. b. to hold that the petitioner is eli gible for fiscal benefit of Cen tral Excise Holiday under Noti fication 50 of 2003 dated 10-06-2003 as amended. c. to issue any other writ or direc tion, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. " The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 06-10-2005 (Annexure -7), whereby respondent no. 3 has asked the petitioner Company to show cause as to why excise duty amount ing to Rs. 6,31,16,456/- should not be recovered for the period September 2004 to 9th of November, 2004. The Apex Court in the case of Trade Tax Officer, Saharanpur Vs. Royal Trading Co. reported in (2005) 11 SCC 518 while considering scope of interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice observed in para 1 : "1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 21-1-2000. The re spondent Company were clearing their goods on the basis that they were leather sheets within the meaning of Section 14 of the Cen tral Sales Tax Act. A show-cause notice was issued to them claiming that the items cleared by them were not leather sheets and that a higher duty was required to be paid. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of the show-cause notice. The High Court ignoring the well-settled law that against a mere issuance of the show-cause notice a Court should be reluctant to interfere, purported to go into the facts and quashed show-cause notice in a mechanical way. In our view the approach of the High Court was entirely wrong. All that had been done was that a show cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory, based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the ap pellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court. "
(3.) IN view of the above quoted dic tum of the Apex Court, the writ peti tion is liable to be dismissed summar ily. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to file reply to the show-cause notice and in case an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, to challenge the same before an ap propriate forum under the relevant provisions of law.;