IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the rare interference at the show cause notice stage and the availability of alternative statutory remedies, highlighting the temporary nature of interim orders and the need for factual adjudication to establish lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

(Inderjeet Singh, J.) :

1. Today, this matter was listed before the Coordinate Bench (Court No.5) and as per the notice in the supplementary cause-list, the urgent matters were mentioned before this Court.

2. Counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter before this Court even without informing the opposite counsel and pressed much hard for finally deciding the matter at this stage only.

3. During the course of the proceedings, we called upon the opposite counsel for the Department to assist this Court. On the request made by counsel for the petitioner, we have heard the matter finally at this stage.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (to be referred as 'the Act of 1961').

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 as the same has been issued without following the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT. He further submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8296/2023 (Krishna Kumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Anr.), after considering the matter has directed that the proceedings may go on but the final order of assessment be not passed.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner at the premature stage against the show-cause notice only as the proceedings are still pending before the authority before whom the petitioner can submit reply and raise all his objections available under the law.

7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Coastal Container Transporters Association & Ors., reported in (2019) 20 SCC 446 in para-19 has held as under :-

“19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned senior Counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the Appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition Under Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notices. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show cause notice, but it is settled by number of decisions of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at the show cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, more so, when against the final orders appeal lies to this Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment, arising out of Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of service, the Respondents ought to have responded to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning the very show cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it cannot be said that even from the contents of show cause notices there are no factual disputes. Further, the judgment of this Court in the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0407/2004 : 2004 (166) ELT 153 (S.C.), relied on by the learned senior Counsel for the Appellants also supports their case where this Court has upheld the judgment of the High Court which