JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this writ petition, notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Guna (the respondent No. 1) under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mai Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 to the petitioner requiring it to show cause as to why entry tax may not be levied on it, have been challenged. ( 2. ) THE case of the petitioner is that it does not cause entry of any goods in any local area for consumption, use or sale in the said local area and consequently, it is not liable to pay entry tax. ( 3. ) A return has been filed in which this claim of the petitioner has been challenged and it has been asserted that the petitioner was actually causing entry of goods into another local area and that the Sales Tax Officer (Flying Squad), Gwalior, had collected sufficient data on the spot in this behalf before the impugned notice was issued. ( 4. ) THE main question in the instant case, therefore, which falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is causing entry of goods in another local area or not. This question essentially is a question of fact and can be decided properly only by the fact finding authority, after considering the evidence that may be produced by the parties. ( 5. ) IN the instant case so far only notices have been issued requiring the petitioner to show cause. In response to the said notices, it was open to the petitioner to establish its case by producing before the Sales Tax Officer evidence to show that it is not liable to pay entry tax. In Lalji Haridas v. Income-tax Officer [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC), a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer was challenged in writ petition on the ground that the assessment proceedings which were sought to be initiated by issuing the impugned notice were barred by limitation. It was held that the question, of limitation can and ought to have been raised by the appellant before the Income-tax Officer. That is not a point which can be legitimately agitated in the writ proceedings. ( 6. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. That is not a point which can be legitimately agitated in the writ proceedings. ( 6. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. Appropriate course for the petitioner is to file a reply to the show cause notices and substantiate its case before the Sales Tax Officer. We are confident that if such an objection is filed, the Sales Tax Officer shall dispose it of after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case. ( 7. ) IN the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.