Court dismisses writ petition challenging penalty order, emphasizes statutory remedies over discretionary jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the exhibit P5 order imposing penalty, citing lack of proper hearing opportunity and failure to consider objections. The petitioner's non-registration as a dealer and non-remittance of taxes were highlighted, along with previous non-compliance with legal proceedings. The court declined interference, emphasizing the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies instead of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to exhibit P5 order imposing penalty, lack of proper opportunity of hearing, failure to submit objections, non-registration as a dealer, non-remittance of tax, previous legal proceedings.

Challenge to exhibit P5 order imposing penalty: The petitioner challenged the exhibit P5 order imposing penalty, alleging lack of proper opportunity of hearing and failure to consider objections submitted. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite submitting objections and requesting an adjournment, the impugned order was passed without due consideration.

Non-registration as a dealer and non-remittance of tax: The Government Pleader contended that the petitioner was not a registered dealer and had not remitted the tax due on the turnover of "medicines" and "intra ocular lenses" supplied, despite crossing the turnover limit. The petitioner's failure to take registration under the Act was highlighted based on verification of bills and related documents.

Previous legal proceedings: It was noted that the petitioner had been involved in previous legal proceedings regarding penalties imposed for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Despite filing multiple writ petitions and seeking stay orders, the petitioner had not complied with the directions of the appellate authority and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, including non-remittance of the disputed amount and failure to furnish security.

Decision: The court declined interference in the matter, dismissing the writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies. The court emphasized that it was for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy if aggrieved, rather than seeking discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---