9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Second respondent conducted an inspection of the shop of the petitioner. Irregularities were noticed in the maintenance of the accounts. Petitioner was directed to produce his books of accounts and other documents for verification. Petitioner submitted his explanation and records, through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 46(1)(c) of the Act by issuing exhibit P4 notice. Without exhausting the steps under section 46(1)(c), he was clearly in error in proceeding under section 45A of the Act. The second contention is that the second respondent did not apply his mind to the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. 3.. The learned Government Pleader submitted that prosecution under section 46(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is view, it is not necessary for this Court to interfere with exhibit P8. 4.. Exhibit P4 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why prosecution under section 46(1)(c) should not be launched against him. In pursuance to the said notice, no prosecution was launched. The power of the second respondent under section 45A is independent of the prosecution contemplated under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is not sustainable. In the impugned order, exhibit P8, the second respondent has not applied his mind to the reasons for imposing the maximum penalty. On that ground exhibit P8 order has to be interfered with by this Court. In the result, I dispose of the original petition by quashing exhibit P8 to the limited extent indicated hereinbelow. The second respondent is directed to examine the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
