Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a retail seller of motor spirits as well as high speed diesel oil. He was granted a registration certificate under the U. P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Diesel Oil Taxation Act, 1939. He committed delay in paying the tax on the monthly sales of motor spirits as well as diesel oil. On March 1, 1973, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner stating that his registration certificate has been placed under suspension and requiring him to show cause why the certificate be not cancelled and why the unpaid amounts of tax be not realised as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner made an application by way of showing cause, on a consideration whereof the Prescribed Authority passed an order on 14th of March, 1973, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. It appears that no action to cancel the registration certificate of the petitioner was taken. The petitioner filed an appeal. He challenged the validity of the order of suspension also. The Excise Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged these orders by the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged that the order of suspension was illegal because it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of this point, because soon after the suspension order was passed the petitioner obtained an order of stay from the Appellate Authority. Thereafter when the proceedings were finalised by the Prescribed Authority no order of cancellation was passed, with the result that the order of suspension pendente lite came to an end on March 14, 1973, when the Prescribed Authority passed the order imposing penalty. Even if it be assumed that an order of suspension pendente lite could not validly be passed without hearing the dealer, no useful purpose will be served by going into the merits of that question or setting aside the order of suspension, because it has already exhausted itself.
(3.) It was then urged that the Prescribed Authority was in error in imposing penalty to the tune of double the amount of tax which was not paid within time. For instance, for the month of October, 1972, an amount of Rs. 53/12, which was due payable by 30th November, 1972, was actually paid on 19th December, 1972. For this default a penalty of Rs. 100/- has been imposed. Similarly, for the delay in depositing sales tax amounting to Rs. 187.04 for November, 1972, a penalty of Rs. 375/- has been imposed. For the month of December, 1972, a sum of Rs. 268.72 remained unpaid by the due date. For it a penalty of Rs. 525/- has been imposed. It is thus evident that the Prescribed Authority has imposed penalty to the extent of virtually double the amount of the tax which was deposited with delay. In substance the petitioner has to pay double the amount of the tax by way of penalty in addition to having already paid the amount of tax.;