Ve Comercial Vehicles Ltd. Through Mr Nitin Nagda Vice President Indirect Taxation And Shared Servi vs. Union Of India Dhar

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the show-cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act whereas the ingredients of Section 1 WP-40414-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34444 74 of the Act is not mentioned in the show-cause notice. There is no allegation of any fradulent act on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that the show-cause notice has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 44 of the Act. He further argued that the impugned notice is nothing but a repeated third notice on the same issue, therefore, principle of res judicata would attract and, therefore, the impugned show- cause notice is liable to be quashed, and the writ petition is maintainable. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:- Application No.19437/2016). c) Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC online SC 801. d) Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) & Anr. vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill. reported in 2012 (2) SCC 108. e ) State of H.P & Ors. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2005 (6) SCC 499. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the writ petition is filed against a show-cause notice and, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his submission, counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments:- 2 WP-40414-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34444 a) Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2020 (12) SCC 808. e) Tripti Alcobrew Ltd. State of M.P & Ors.(W.P No.1969/2014) WP-40414-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34444 SCC Online MP 7012. n ) R.K Modi & Sons vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P No.21074/2021). o) M/S Study Metro Edu Consultant Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Director & Ors. (W.P No.30467/2023). No.3333/2025)

In regard to the first contention of counsel for the petitioner that a show-cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act and the ingredients of Section 74 containing allegations of fradulent act are not present, counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the ingredients are present in the show-cause notice as required under Section 74 of the Act. He further contended that the contents of the impugned show-cause notice further reflects that there is allegation of fradulent act against the petitioner. He argued that the show-cause notices are not on the same issues but on different issues and the statute does not bar the issuance of show-cause notice on different issues, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner regarding res judicata is not applicable. He further argued that the show- cause notices were issued within the time limit as per the statute.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the various judgments, referred by both the parties, this Court finds that the law in regard to the show-cause notice is well established that there is no absolute bar for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a show-cause notice. However, in the case 4 WP-40414-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34444 (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE of Special Director & Anr. vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 440 it has been held that against a show-cause notice, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Court is satisfied of the nullity of the show-cause notice for want of jurisdiction of the Authority. In the present case, we do not find that the impugned notice has been issued by an incompetent Authority or the Authority is lacking any inherent lack of jurisdiction. The points which have been canvassed before us can very well be addressed by the competent Authority. In the light of the aforesaid judgments and the judgment passed in the case of Malladi Drugs (supra), the petition is not entertained against the show-cause notice. If the petitioner has not already filed reply, the Authority shall grant him reasonable time not beyond 15 days to file reply and thereafter shall decide the case in accordance with the law by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of without entertaining on merit. PK