The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, recently, had an occasion to adjudicate upon a petition challenging a show-cause notice in a writ petition. The impugned notice dated 7^th December 2023  have been issued under the CGST Act. After issuance of the show-cause notice (7^th Dec’23), the Petitioner had filed its reply/objections and subsequently an order had been passed on 22^nd July 2024, in pursuance of the show-cause notice. The Petitioner had filed detailed reply/objections, against the said order, raising various defences before the issuing authority. The Petitioner filed the petition impugning the show-cause notice, on 5^th Sept’2024 viz. after the final order was passed. The prime grievance of the petitioner was that the show-cause was vague and being vague, it denied the Petitioner opportunity of setting up its defence viz. the vague notice made it difficult for the Petitioner to present its case since the Petitioner could not understand (owing to vagueness) what was the case of the Department. In other words, the Petitioner was not made aware of what was the case against it, that it was supposed to meet. And this, according to the Petitioner, resulted into violation of principles of natural justice. As a corollary, the Petitioner contended, the order passed in consequence of the show-cause notice was a nullity.

      The Hon’ble Bench rendered the following findings:

1. The show-cause notice was, far from being vague, a detailed one and clearly raising various facts/issues. The notice stated/referred to information/ intelligent inputs that were received by the Dept, on the basis of which the notice was issued and the notice was unambiguous.
2. The Hon’ble Court noted that the Petitioners had filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice before the authority and while filing reply/ies, the petitioners were not handicapped by any vagueness; in fact the Petitioner had raised detailed defences/propositions in its reply. No where in its reply had the Petitioner alleged any vagueness.

1. All in all, the show-cause notice was very clear and detailed. Since the Petitioners had filed detailed replies raising various propositions/defences, it meant that the Petitioners fully understood the contents of the notice and the alleged ‘vagueness’ did not prevent the Petitioners from filing reply. In other words, the allegation of vagueness was misconceived.

2024. Further, if the Petitioners were genuinely affected by vagueness of the notice, they ought to have moved the Court forthwith whereas the show-cause notice dated 7^th December 2023 was challenged on 5^th September 2024.

1. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v.. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Court held that recourse to writ jurisdiction can be sought where Petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or vires of the Act is challenged. The Hon’ble Court lamented that the trend in recent times was to assail, in a challenge to the show-cause notice in a writ petition, validity of some statutory provision so as to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy.
2. Alluding to the decision in UOI v. Coastal Container Transporters Association (2019) 20 SCC 446, the Hon’ble Court held that writ petition can be entertained only where there was either of lack of jurisdiction or any violation of principles of natural justice.

1. Referring to the case of Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004)3 SCC 440, the Hon’ble Court, observed that unless the show-cause notice is totally non-est in the eyes of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine.

The Court concluded that the above facts led to the inference that the Petitioner had filed a frivolous petition only to avoid recourse to statutory remedy and take its chance with filing petition in High Court. the petition was dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.5 Lakhs  to be paid  to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within four weeks.  (WP No.  (L) No. 27725 of 2024 dated 14 October 2024.)