Court deems penalty imposition without formal order illegal under Karnataka Sales Tax Act

The court found the imposition of a penalty without a formal order under sub-section (4) of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to be illegal and unauthorized. The petitioner's request for a copy of the order was granted, and the third respondent was directed to refund the penalty amount within two weeks. The court emphasized the necessity for strict compliance with the law by authorities with statutory powers to prevent arbitrary exercises of power.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction to furnish a copy of the order dated under sub-section (4) of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Imposition of penalty without a formal order under sub-section (4) of section 28A of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the third respondent to provide a copy of the order dated under sub-section (4) of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner was transporting goods with relevant documents when the third respondent stopped the vehicle and imposed a penalty without a formal order. The third respondent claimed the penalty was voluntarily paid by the petitioner due to discrepancies in the documents, but no formal order was issued. The court found the collection of the penalty without a proper order to be illegal and unauthorized, emphasizing the necessity for strict compliance with the law by authorities with statutory powers. The third respondent was directed to refund the penalty amount to the petitioner within two weeks.

2. The key issue was the imposition of a penalty without a formal order under sub-section (4) of section 28A of the Act. The third respondent collected a penalty from the petitioner based on document discrepancies, but no official order was issued as required by law. The court held that the absence of a formal order rendered the penalty collection unauthorized and arbitrary. The third respondent acknowledged procedural irregularities and expressed regret for not following the legal requirement of issuing an order before collecting the penalty. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures to prevent arbitrary exercises of power. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty imposition was upheld, and the third respondent was directed to refund the penalty amount to the petitioner promptly.

---