Reasoned penalty order required before check-post levy; mere receipt without quasi-judicial determination cannot sustain collection.

A writ petition was maintainable despite an asserted alternative remedy because the check-post receipt was not an appealable original order under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and no reasoned quasi-judicial determination had been made. Penalty collection at the check-post was unlawful because section 51 required a reasoned order and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing penalty; collection without recording any contravention or compliance failure could not be sustained, and refund of the amounts collected was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of an alternative appellate remedy under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the collection of Rs. 20 per truck per trip at the check-post as penalty under section 51 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was lawful.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of an alternative appellate remedy under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under section 39 of the Act presupposed the existence of an appealable original order. The receipt issued at the check-post was not an order passed under section 51(2) supported by reasons. No quasi-judicial determination specifying any contravention or failure was made, and the absence of an order also made the appeal procedure under rule 55(3) ineffective in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the collection of Rs. 20 per truck per trip at the check-post as penalty under section 51 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 was lawful.

Analysis: Section 51(2) required a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing penalty, and the order imposing penalty had to be a reasoned quasi-judicial order. The check-post authority collected the amount without passing such an order and without recording the alleged contravention or non-compliance. The practice was contrary to the statutory scheme and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty was unlawful and was quashed, with directions for refund of the amounts collected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on merits and the petitioners obtained relief against the check-post collection practice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires a reasoned quasi-judicial order before penalty can be imposed, a mere receipt or collection entry without such an order is not an appealable order and cannot sustain the levy.

---