ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated 15.10.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur, on various grounds including the ground that the authority concerned has already made up mind and this notice has been issued only to project that opportunity of hearing is sought to be given to the petitioner before passing the same order for which decision has been taken by the authority and it has been communicated in the show cause notice itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case of violation of principle of natural justice and in case of issuance of a snow cause notice, issued after a decision has already been taken by the authority, the show cause notice can be challenged by filing the writ petition, for which counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.N. Hoskar has relied upon the judgments delivered in the case of Siemens Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra & other, (2006) 12 SCC 33 and the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 . 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Department, Shri Ratnesh Kumar, heavily relied upon the judgments delivered in the cases Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. & another vs. State of Orissa & another, AIR 1983 SC 603 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. & other, AIR 1985 SC 330 and yet two another judgments delivered in the cases of Commissioner of Cus. & C. EX. vs. Charminar Nonwovens Ltd., 2004 (167) ELT 372 (SC) and Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2004 (166) ELT 153 (SC) and submitted that this writ petition against the show cause notice is not maintainable. 5. In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. arising out of sales tax matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had efficacious remedy by way of appeal and second appeal under Sales Tax Act and in event of failure to get any relief in appeals, he had a right to approach the High Court, In that fact situation, it has been held that there was alternative remedy available to the petitioner and the direct writ petition was not entertained. In paragraph 6, it has been clearly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, then a second appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3)(a) thereof, and thereafter, in the event the petitioners get no relief, to have the case stated to the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. In the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., order impugned was the order passed in proceeding under Section 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957. Therefore, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held, that in a case where orders are appealable, writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not available. 6. In the case of Dunlop India Ltd., earlier decisions of Supreme Court, including the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., were also considered. In the case of Dunlop India Ltd., the Department was of the view that the company was not entitled to the exemption as it has cleared the goods earlier without paying central excise duty, but on furnishing bank guarantees under various interim orders of Courts. The company claimed the benefit of the exemption to the tune of Rs. 6.05 crores and filed writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and sought an interim order restraining the central excise authorities from the levy and collection of excise duty. In the said writ petition, learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court found prima facie case in favour of the company and by an interim order, allowed the benefit of exemption to the tune of Rs. two crores ninety-three lakhs and eighty-five thousand and for which amount the company was directed to furnish bank guarantee and upon furnishing bank guarantee, goods were directed to be released. The said order was challenged by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, under Clause 10 of letters patent, The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court confirmed the said order and ultimately the matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of obtaining interim orders, particularly where effective alternative remedy is available. The said order was challenged by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, under Clause 10 of letters patent, The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court confirmed the said order and ultimately the matter reached to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the tendency of obtaining interim orders, particularly where effective alternative remedy is available. Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various earlier decisions and though deprecated such tendency of by passing remedy under the Act and of obtaining interim order, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there may be cases where interim orders are required to be passed and in that situation, interim orders should be made in the interest of justice and in cases of gross violation of law and injustices are perpetuated or about to be perpetuated, then it is the bounden duty of the Court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. Be that as it may, substantially the said judgment pertains to grant of interim relief where other remedy is available to the parties, which has not been appreciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Dunlop India Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed in the case before the Supreme Court, there was no question of balance of convenience being in favour of the respondent company and the balance of convenience was certainly in favour of the Government of India and then Supreme Court observed that, very often some Courts act as if furnishing a bank guarantee would meet the ends of justice and no governmental business or for that matter no business of any kind can be run on mere bank guarantees and thereafter, observed that, liquid cash is necessary for the running of a Government as indeed for any other enterprise. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, where matters of public revenue are concerned, it is of utmost importance to realize that interim orders ought not to be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown more is required arid the balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the making of an interim order and there should not be the slightest indication of a likelihood of prejudice to the public interest. 7. In the case of Charminar Nonwovens Ltd. (supra), a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the show cause notice and the detention order. 7. In the case of Charminar Nonwovens Ltd. (supra), a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the show cause notice and the detention order. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the matter relating to commodity classification whether it falls under one heading or the other or attracts higher or lower duty has to be decided on facts arising in each case and thereafter. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even though, the decision may have been taken earlier at one point of time but on further investigation, discovery of new fact or the law has changed the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the matter has to be re-examined and in this situation, it has been observed that it was not proper for the High Court to interfere at the stage of issue of show cause notice. By that brief order, on the above facts, the petition to challenge the show cause notice was dismissed. In a very brief order rendered in another case, the case of Malladi Drugs & Pharma Ltd., the dispute was relating to the activity of the assessee, when show cause notice was challenged, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition, which was filed against a mere show cause notice. 8. Against the above judgments, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & other and Oryx Fisheries Private Limited vs. Union of India & other. In the case of Siemens Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in a case where show cause notice has been issued, the Court can examine whether the jurisdictional fact existed for issuance of the said notice. So Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the legal position that ordinarily a writ Court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause, observed by making it clear that unless the same appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held in the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179 ; Special Director vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 . Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 . Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that, when notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable and also held that in such an event, even if the Court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose and Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the case of K.I. Shephard vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431 . 9. In the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd., Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 31, 32 and 33, observed as follows:– "31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hypertechnically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. 32. Therefore, while issuing; a show cause notice, the authorities must take are to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice. 33. The principle that justice must riot only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. 33. The principle that justice must riot only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi-judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. In view of the above judgments, it is clear that ordinarily writ jurisdiction is not available to challenge the show cause notice, however subject to certain exceptions, which have been mentioned in the above judgments as well as have been noticed in the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the Revenue delivered by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Kirloskar Computer Service Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1998 (98) ELT 355 (Kant), wherein also it has been held that, interference with the proceedings initiated by the statutory authority in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction would be justified only in exceptional circumstances and those situations in which Courts have interfered even when the statutes under which the proceedings are initiated provide for a complete machinery to challenge the orders passed are the cases where the constitutional vires of the very enactment under which the proceedings are initiated is under challenge cases where the proceedings have been initiated or concluded in total violation of the principle natural justice and where the orders impugned are totally without jurisdiction or where private and public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up or where prevention of public injury and vindication of public justice demands that recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution be taken. In the case of Kirloskar Computer Service Ltd., various other judgments including the judgments rendered in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Dunlop India Ltd. were also considered. Therefore, in the light of the above we have to examine whether the petitioner has made out a case of violation of principle of natural justice in issuing the notice impugned dated 15.10.2012 and there is element of predetermined mind of the authority reflecting from the notice itself. However, counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the backgrounds of the case which are also very relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. 11. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner company entered into two contracts with two different parties namely Aravali Power Company Private Limited and Damodar Valley Corporation. However, counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the backgrounds of the case which are also very relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. 11. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner company entered into two contracts with two different parties namely Aravali Power Company Private Limited and Damodar Valley Corporation. The two contracts with two parties, according to the petitioner are of different transaction one for supply of plant and equipments and another of service contracts. Both the contracts are written and separate contracts. The Petitioner was liable to pay service tax for only service contract and was not liable to pay service tax for supply contract agreement entered with two parties. The petitioner's contentions are based on the facts as well as on the basis of interpretation of the Contract Act. The petitioner's contention is also having legal ground based on amended provision of Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, which came into force with effect from 1.6.2007, containing the proviso, which is as under:– "Provided that nothing contained in this explanation shall apply to a Works Contract, where the execution under the said contract has commenced or where any payment except by way of credit or debit to any account, has been made in relation to the said contract on or before the 7.7.2009." Be that as it may, since in this petition challenge is to the show cause notice this Court is not entering into any of the factual or legal issue, which may be contentious. 12. The proceeding was initiated by the Revenue against the petitioner by issuing notice dated 12.1.2010 and summons were issued to the M.D. of the assesse company, Shri Sudhir Deoras under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was received by the Managing Director of the company on 11.11.2011, directing him for his personal appearance for evidence. In the said proceedings, Officers of that company already appeared before the concerned authority and their statements were recorded but the authority was of the view that the Managing Director of the petitioner company, Sudhir Deoras should give his own statement. The said Sudhir Deoras along with petitioner-company preferred a writ petition, being W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court. In the decision given in W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011, this Court observed as under:– "8. The said Sudhir Deoras along with petitioner-company preferred a writ petition, being W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011, which was allowed by this Court. In the decision given in W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011, this Court observed as under:– "8. Keeping in mind all these principles, we have to examine whether it is a fit case for interference by this Court in the matter of summoning of the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of a limited company, who has been summoned under Section 14 of the Act of 1944 only for the purpose of giving his statements and has not been summoned for producing documents. Therefore, the Officer has all the documents with him as may be needed by him at this stage. The contention of the company is that its all affairs relating to tax in question is handled by Ashim Roy, who is the General Manager (F&A) and whatever he has stated company is accepting to be the statements on behalf of the company. The company also stated that the company does not want to state more than what Ashim Roy, General Manager (F&A), has stated before the authority under Section 14 of the Act of 1944. The company's stand also is to the effect that the said authorized officer has issued summon to the Managing Director of the company on the ground that Ashim Roy did not give proper reply to the queries raised by the investigating team, Ashim Roy is one of the seniormost officials of the petitioner company and is entirely acquainted with all taxation matters of the petitioner company." 13. In paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment, after taking note of the reasons given by the concerned authority this Court observed as under:– "9. In view of the above stand of the petitioner and petitioner company, the Managing Director to whom all facts may not be in full knowledge and in better knowledge than the knowledge of the General Manager (F&A) of the company is also a relevant issue. In view of the above stand of the petitioner and petitioner company, the Managing Director to whom all facts may not be in full knowledge and in better knowledge than the knowledge of the General Manager (F&A) of the company is also a relevant issue. Not only this issue alone can be a factor for us but other factors, which are relevant are coming from the reply filed by the respondents, wherein the respondents have quoted relevant statements of Ashim Roy to indicate that General Manager (F&A), Ashim Roy gives some evasive reply and even did not disclose what the gross value of the project by stating that there is no gross value of the project. Ashim Roy also stated that I cannot express my opinion whether this means a Turnkey/Composite contract to the best of his knowledge. It is also stated that ownership of the plant and equipments (including spare parts) procured in the country where the site is located shall be transferred to the employer when the plant and equipments are loaded on to the mode of transport to be used to convey the plant and equipments. In the reply, it has been stated that it is clear from the, above:– (i) That the employer has not yet taken the care, custody and the risk of the equipment delivered by TRF to them till now. The employer will take over the goods together with the care, custody and the risks only after issuance of the completion certificate. Thus, ownership of the goods has riot yet been passed. (ii) It falsifies, the statement of Sri Roy who told that the ownership of the goods gets transferred as per Sale of Goods Act, as the risk is still with TRF. (iii) It also makes suspicious and requires to be ascertained whether the statement dated 16.6.2010 of Sri. Roy, who in answer to Question No. 11 stated that the goods were not in a ready state for operation when the transfer of title took place." 14. This Court in the aforesaid case held as under:– "12. (iii) It also makes suspicious and requires to be ascertained whether the statement dated 16.6.2010 of Sri. Roy, who in answer to Question No. 11 stated that the goods were not in a ready state for operation when the transfer of title took place." 14. This Court in the aforesaid case held as under:– "12. In the light of this legal position as well as in the light of the nature of the affairs of any public limited company the Officer under Section 14 of the Act of 1944 should examine the relevant issue before summoning any person to give evidence because of the reason that every person of the company may not be a relevant person at all for the purpose of inquiry may he be holding highest position hi the company because of the reason mentioned above. In that situation and to avoid unnecessary delay it is always appropriate to first ask the company to send a duly authorized person well acquainted with the facts and issues involved in the inquiry so that thereafter the company may not take evasive stand and may not take false stand that the person who deposed was either not authorized or had no knowledge or had given statements without the knowledge of the company etc. This will advance the cause of justice and certainly rules out the delay that may be in the conduct of any inquiry. At the same time, it is not binding upon the Assessing Officer to accept that the person nominated by the company to be and as only witness who can be examined in the inquiry. The Enquiry Officer in the facts and circumstances of a particular case it is not satisfied with the statements on the ground of its being unreliable (prima facie) or any further explanation is required from the person who may be found to be relevant by the Assessing Officer from the statements of such witness, in that situation the Enquiry of Officer may summon any of the persons irrespective of his status in this company. It appears that sometimes when the highest executive or higher person in the affairs of the c0mpany refuses or do not want to appear in response to the summon for giving evidence or for producing documentary evidence, then it may be misunderstood because of the sole reason of his status. It appears that sometimes when the highest executive or higher person in the affairs of the c0mpany refuses or do not want to appear in response to the summon for giving evidence or for producing documentary evidence, then it may be misunderstood because of the sole reason of his status. That impression may not be true in all cases. The efforts of not making appearance before the Assessing Officer by the highest officer or person who is at the helm of the affairs of the company may be due to the reason that he himself may not have knowledge and there is more probability of drawing impression that person in high position must have knowledge of each and every activity and he can be in better position to explain contracts and such impression may not be correct because of the reason that for better task, planning services of expert are taken whose opinions are accepted by the persons in high position in company and therefore, persons who prepared the contract may better explain the contract, if needed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer or Enquiry Officer should keep in mind that he being an Officer authorized by law to summon any body does not make him an Officer having no control of reasonableness and though he has right to summon any person either the Managing Director or the General Manager of the company or even a clerk of the company but he should not summon unless it is required for the purpose of an inquiry. Sometimes such summon to the company's officer may also be misunderstood that the same has been issued by the Officer to show his authority. It is also not correct. In dealing with the public by all Officers having power to summon, such caution is required to be taken that no other impression be gathered by anybody either by the high officers in the company or any of the persons who has been summoned by the authority, nor by the authority himself that either is only trying to show his authority or superiority. If this impression is removed by both the parties, then only enquiry may proceed smoothly without there being delay and thus this will avoid unnecessary challenge to the orders of summoning the persons in inquiry." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. If this impression is removed by both the parties, then only enquiry may proceed smoothly without there being delay and thus this will avoid unnecessary challenge to the orders of summoning the persons in inquiry." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. After the decision in W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011, the same person, Managing Director of the petitioner company, Sudhir Deoras was served with a letter dated 25.9.2012 again under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act directing the said Managing Director to submit replies relating to the questionnaires duly filled with seal and signature within three days of the receipt of that letter. The said Sudhir Deoras along with the petitioner company challenged the said letter dated 25.9.2012 by filing writ petition being W.P (T) No. 6046 of 2012. In the said writ petition this Court on 6th October. 2012 stayed the operation of the communication dated 25.9. 2012. 16. It appears that during the pendency of the above proceedings and wherein notice for appearance of Managing Director of the petitioner company and notice to reply questionnaires have been quashed stayed and who is petitioner no. 2 in this petition, the impugned notice dated 15.10.2012 has been issued. 17. The entire show cause notice we cannot quote to make our judgment bulky because the show cause notice is running in 42 pages. However, we can quote some of the portions of the notice which are relevant to find out whether present show cause notice has been issued with predetermined mind and in violation of the principle of natural justice or not? The contention of the Revenue against the petitioner is that these two contracts are composite and intricately related and in fact it constitutes one contract creating tax liability on the basis of the value which can be determined on the basis of both the contracts and in the matter of both the companies referred above and the contracts are, in fact, turnkey project. There may be other issues but the reasons given for issuance of notice is in the notice itself, which clearly indicate that there can be reasonable apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioner that the notice is not in fact a notice but the decision taken by the Revenue has been conveyed to the petitioner. It will be appropriate to refer the paragraphs which have been seriously objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. It will be appropriate to refer the paragraphs which have been seriously objected by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. We are conscious of the fact that when show cause notice contains reasons so as to convey the reason for issuance of the show cause notice to the assesse so that he can effectively answer, may be misunderstood by receiver of such notice to be a decision of the authority, instead of understanding that the notice has been given with reasons so that the notice may be adequately replied, which may be considered by the said issuing authority for arriving at a just decision after hearing the person noticed. However, sometimes notice may be issued by the authority, which may in unequivocal and unambiguous terms, reflect some element of conveying decision on contentious issues rather than putting question to the assessee and sometimes notice may also reflect predetermined mind of the authority. The distinction is required to be found out from the facts of each case. At the cost of repetition, we may observe here that containing reasons in the notice for forming an opinion, which is required to be reflected in the notice itself will not render the notice illegal or make an issue of violation of principle of natural justice and may not be result of predetermined mind. Therefore, it is the duty cast upon the person challenging the notice to show that there is an indication of predetern1ined mind of the authority issuing the notice. 19. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner referred various paragraphs of the show cause notice. In a case where show cause notice is challenged on the ground of predetermined mind or on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, in that situation reply to the writ petition justifying the reasons given in the notice, if not properly drafted, may also constitute to mean to support the apparent decision of the concerned authority mentioned in the show cause notice creating further apprehension in the mind of the assessee that the said authority has again reiterated and supported its decision taken in notice in reply to the writ petition supported by affidavit. Reply affidavit to challenge to show cause notice is an art. Reply affidavit to challenge to show cause notice is an art. Then the aggrieved person may presume how the authority will take a decision contrary to the stand taken by the Department in the High Court and that too on oath. Such reason may be valid as well as such impressions are also if not well founded are liable to be rejected. 20. Keeping in mind the above legal position we are examining whether the observations made in the notice were only the reasons disclosed by the assessing authority to the petitioner so that the petitioner may reply the reasons for forming an opinion of levying tax and interest and for imposing penalty or the contents of that notice impugned are sufficiently demonstrating the some element of predetermined mind of the authority. 21. From the entire notice it appears that the authority issuing notice appears to have tried to convince himself more instead of putting questions to the assessee. The dispute is only with respect to interpretation of two contracts entered into between the parties petitioner on one side and other two parties Aravali Power Company Private Limited and Damodar Valley Corporation on the other. They may be composite and inextricable related contract forming one transaction or may not be. Those contracts may be turnkey project contract or may not be. The evidence may justify forming either of the opinion for which a party if wants to take a decision fairly. then he is supposed to give not only an opportunity of hearing to other party but also is required to show that the action of even initiation of proceedings is fair and without any predetermination of mind. As we have already stated that the notice in question is running in 42 pages, it will be relevant to mention that in paragraph 13.3, it has been mentioned that from the above two evidences it appears that M/s. TRF have consciously misdeclared the taxable value by knowingly vivisected the gross value of project terming them as value of sale of goods and value for provisions of service with clear intention to defraud the national exchequer. In paragraph 14.2(c) it has been mentioned as under:– "14.2 (c) It appears from the facts discussed above that TRF always knew the services rendered by them was livable to service tax under the Works Contract (Composition Scheme or Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 they did not find it necessary to arrive at the correct value on which service tax would be payable." 22. In paragraph 15.3 it has been said that the petitioner no. 2, Sri Sudhir L. Deoras, Managing Director of the company is a member of Finance Committee of the company and the Finance Committee deals reviews and monitors the financial matters requiring special attention and the issue raised by the department relating to non-payment of service tax amounting to Rs.14,39,40,275/- by TRF to the Government exchequer has not been brought to the notice of the Finance Committee in its meeting which has been held for three times in this financial year and no cognizance has been taken, by the members of the Finance Committee of TRF of which Sri Sudhir L. Deoras is a member. Then in paragraph 15.3 it has been observed that it can be well assumed that the matter must have been placed before the Committee and deliberated upon among the members of the committee with the concerned officials of TRF. It shows that by this some assumption has been drawn with respect to the affairs of the financial decision of the company wherein one of the members is the Managing Director Shri Sudhir Deoras and for the reason best known to the Commissioner no presumption has been drawn against other member of the finance committee. Paragraph 15.4 is also relevant which is as under:– "15.4 It is further observed that at Para 11 of Corporate Governance Report for the year 2011-12 (appearing on Page 21) of 49th Annual Report of TRF for the Financial Year 2011-12 it is mentioned that the Managing Director and Controller of Accounts who heads the Finance function have submitted the required Certificate to the Board at its meeting held on 8.5.2012, wherein the Audited Accounts of the Company for the financial year 2011-12 were considered. Under the circumstances, Shri Sudhir L. Deoras, M.D. TRF can not absolve himself for replying the questions mentioned in the Questionnaire and sought for under the provisions of Section 14 of the CEA 44, on the grounds that he is not involved with day to day taxation or routine matters." (Emphasis supplied) Above observations in the impugned show cause notice is when said Shri Sudhir Deoras has already once successfully challenged his summoning and order to summon him has been quashed by this Court in W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011 and when said Shri Sudhir Deoras was asked to give reply to questions vide letter dated 25.9.2012, that communication has been stayed by this Court and issue is sub-judice in this Court. 23. Paragraph Nos. 15.6, 15.7 and 15.8 being also relevant are reproduced below:– "15.6 The MD in collusion with the officials of TRF, acted in the manner to enable TRF to gain financial benefits to TRF at the cost of Government exchequer to show his business acumen. It is mentioned at sub-para 4(b) of PARA 11 (INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPOINTEES) of Details of directors seeking app-ointment/re-appointment in the forthcqti1ing Annual General Meeting of 47th Annual Report of FY 2009-10 of TRF (Page 9 of the Annual Report) it has been mentioned that Suitability-(b) Mr. Deoras vast experience in operations of different companies, successful record of turning around loss making/sick companies and in view of the high esteem in which he is held in the corporate sector for his technical and commercial knowledge and business acumen, the Board, considers Mr. Sudhir Deoras as the most suitable professional for shouldering the responsibilities of Managing Director of the Company. Therefore, the MD is equally responsible for all acts committed by the officials of TRF and cannot claim any immunity from any punishment just because he has not involved with day to day routine affairs of TRF. Sudhir Deoras as the most suitable professional for shouldering the responsibilities of Managing Director of the Company. Therefore, the MD is equally responsible for all acts committed by the officials of TRF and cannot claim any immunity from any punishment just because he has not involved with day to day routine affairs of TRF. 15.7 He had full knowledge of the non-payment of due service tax to the Government exchequer by TRF by resorting to illegal means and misinterpretation of law, withholding of information away from the department by way of not disclosing the correct picture of the projects by not submitting his replies asked for under the provisions of Section 14 of the CEA as made applicable to the FA, and being the MD of TRF is responsible for the conduct of TRF in as much as policy, plan and decision taken by him which was implemented by his subordinate officials. 15.8 The role played by Shri Sudhir L. Deoras, Managing Director TRF is abundantly reflective of his mens-rea with intent to evade service tax payable by the notice and therefore liable for penalty under the provisions of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994." 24. These paragraphs running in several pages created an impression that one of the highest officers has been targeted who himself in the earlier occasion made it clear to the Department that the person who is the competent officer and who is in know of the fact has already deposed before the authority. This Court already in earlier round of litigation observed that the person holding the position either in the Government or in the company should not make it a prestige issue and particularly when there are quasi-judicial proceedings initiated by the officers in exercise of statutory power having vast jurisdiction and power, more care is required. That vast jurisdiction and power may not be misunderstood to have been exercised to humiliate a person holding the position in a company and at the same time who can be a competent authority or person to give statement before a competent officer has also been dealt with in the judgment of Sudhir Deoras & another vs. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax & another, W.P. (T) No. 6556 of 2011. In these paragraphs of the show cause notice more has been addressed on the way of working of the officers of the company not only about working of Sudhir Deoras but also against Nand Kumar Sarkar controller of accounts and that too pertaining to his working in the company and working for the interest of the company and about both a fide in obtaining the contract in question and the situation stands aggravated by the reply affidavit. If the writ petition is filed to challenge the show cause notice containing the reasons on any of the grounds including the ground of predetermination of mind of the issuing authority even in that situation abundant care is required to be taken while filing reply in such matters otherwise it will be virtually not only difficult but sometimes becomes impossible for the officers of the same Department to take a contrary view to the view taken in the affidavit before the High Court. The purpose can he served by showing that the reasons indicated in the notice are only to make the assessee aware of the facts and the legar issues which he is required to answer. It is very unfortunate that the respondent Department's Officer-incharge in reply affidavit went to the extent of stating that the contracts have been entered into, by the petitioners not under free and genuine consent and have been entered into (due to or under) pressure/ undue influence of the customers. We quote the contention of respondents made at page 43-44 of the counter-affidavit. At page 45, Officer-in-charge of the respondents declared the contracts to be void and thereafter in paragraph 33, the Officer-incharge has declared that the amending notification is clarificatory in nature and is having effects retrospectively and referred and quoted the passage from the judgments of Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Collector of Central Excise, Shillong vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd., (1995) 3 SCC 454 and W.P.I.L. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Merrut, Uttar Pradesh 2005 (181) ELL 359 (SC). The reply affidavit instead of contesting the issue whether show cause notice is a consequence of predetermined mind, tried to fully justify the decision indicated in the show cause notice and confirmed the apprehension of the petitioner that the Department, in place of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to any of the fact or question of law has ready worked out on the subject and formed the opinion at the back of the petitioner by drawing inference from the various judgments mentioned in the show cause notice. 25. In addition to the above, justifying the reasons for which yet reply is to be taken from the petitioner, in reply to the affidavit, the evidence already recorded has also been relied upon only to substantiate that the grounds mentioned in the notice are correct. It will be very difficult for us to quote in detail what has been, said in the reply affidavit because of the reason that it will make our Judgment more bulky and therefore, we have referred a few lines from a detailed affidavit filed by the respondent Department running in 42 pages. It appears that the respondents, on facts on point of law on the basis of conduct of the company on the basis of the conduct of its officers and on the interpretation of the contract, tried to say that the stand which has been taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner, who issued the notice, is absolutely wrong on fact and in law and bona fidely. Such notice cannot be treated to be a notice to show cause in any manner. 26. We are of the considered opinion that the purported show cause notice is only a consequence of predetermined mind of the Officers issuing the notice and is fortified more seriously by the counter-affidavit filed by the Officer-in-charge of the respondents. 27. In such a situation, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in the cases of Siemens Ltd. and Oryx Fisheries Private limited fully apply on the facts of the case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited has made it clear that if on a reasonable reading of a show cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited has made it clear that if on a reasonable reading of a show cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock. his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi-judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence. In this case, the authority failed to keep an open mind and has shown his closed mind to the petitioner and it is a dear case where the principle of natural justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done has been violated. It was violated by the language used in the impugned show cause notice and thereafter the situation further aggravated by the averments made in the counter-affidavit. We are conscious of the fact that the authority while exercising quasi-judicial jurisdiction is not bound by even the reply filed by the officer-in-charge of the Department on the question of law and otherwise also, there cannot be estoppel against law but once an impression is created by the executing authority itself by its own communication that it is not only formed prima facie opinion but it has finally formed opinion, in that situation, if the notice is accepted to be only show cause notice, then that will be absolutely unfair to the person drawing the inference that the decision has already been taken. If this assumption of the assessee is there and thereafter, the issues are decided by the same authority that will make only the assessee understand that it was nothing but a predetermined decision being taken by the authority. 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. even after observing that ordinarily writ Court may not exercise discretion in entertaining the writ petition questioning the notice of show cause held, that in certain circumstance, writ petition can be entertained and one of the situations may be of premeditation and the writ petition is maintainable. 28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Ltd. even after observing that ordinarily writ Court may not exercise discretion in entertaining the writ petition questioning the notice of show cause held, that in certain circumstance, writ petition can be entertained and one of the situations may be of premeditation and the writ petition is maintainable. In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed and hence show cause notice dated 15.10.2012 is set aside. However, since the show cause notice is set aside based on the above grounds we hereby give permission to the authority to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and the authority may proceed to decide the matter without influenced by the reasons given in the show cause notice dated 15.10.2012 or given in the reply counter-affidavit. We are also making it clear that even subsequent notice may contain reasons for the satisfaction of the authority but may be reasonably wise so as to convey the reasons for issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner but not indicating or reflecting that the decision has already been taken nor such notice should be influenced by the show cause notice dated 15.10.2012 or by the reply affidavit. 29. Since it is the challenge to only show cause notice none of our observations may be interpreted as any opinion on the merit of the case of the Revenue or of the petitioner. In the peculiar fact we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be heard by some other Officer for which the Department/Union of India will be free to decide. In this situation if limitation to issue show cause notice if is coming in the way will not be a bar and if the Revenue wants to take steps those steps should be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 30. It goes without saying that the petitioners will be free to take all defence in the proceeding. Petition allowed.