The petitioner is a Company, registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of printing and publication of a daily newspaper and other publications. It is a registered dealer, under the K.G.S.T. and C.S.T. Acts, on the files of the 1st respondent. For printing newspaper and other journals, printing ink is an essential raw material. Section 5(3) of the K.G.S.T. Act provides for a reduced rate of tax @ 3%, payable by the dealer, in respect of sale of raw materials to industrial units, for use in the production of finished products, for sale in the State. The seller to the industrial unit can claim the benefit of payment of the reduced rate of tax, subject to the condition of furnishing a declaration, duly filled and signed by the purchasing dealer, in Form 18. So, the petitioner was purchasing the printing ink, by furnishing the necessary declaration in Form 18 and therefore, the selling dealer was paying tax only at the rate of 3%.

2. While so, the first respondent issued Ext.P1 notice, in respect of the assessment year 2000-01, purportedly under Section 45A of the K.G.S.T. Act, stating that purchase of ink by the petitioner at the concessional rate of 3% tax, by furnishing the declaration in Form 18, is illegal. According to the first respondent, the ink purchased is used for printing newspapers and weeklies and there is no manufacturing process in printing the newspapers. Further, newspapers and weeklies are not taxable goods. So, the pre-conditions for availing the concessional rate of tax, are not present in the transaction. Therefore, the statutory declaration has been misused. The misuse of a statutory declaration is an offence, which should be dealt with under Section 45A of the K.G.S.T. Act. Based on the above facts, it was proposed to impose a fine of Rs.14,66,256/-, being double the amount of tax due on the purchase turnover. The petitioner was called upon by the said notice, to file objections, if any, to the said proposal, within seven days. Similar notices, Exts.P2, P3 and P4 were also issued to it, concerning the financial years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, by the first respondent.

3. The petitioner filed Exts.P5 to P8 objections to the proposals to impose penalty on it. It was pointed out that Section 5(3) of the K.G.S.T. Act has been amended by Finance Act 2000, with effect from 01.04.2000, deleting the first proviso, which provided that the concessional rate of tax will be applicable, if only the finished products are taxable. So, with effect from 01.04.2000, Form 18 declaration can be issued by the petitioner, even though, newspapers and weeklies are not taxable goods. It was reiterated that the process of printing newspapers and weeklies, is a manufacturing process. So, Exts.P1 to P4 were issued without taking note of the amendment to the Act and also the relevant legal position. The petitioner also prayed for a chance for personal hearing, if the first respondent is not inclined to accept its contentions in the reply. But, the petitioner has been served with Exts.P9, P10 and P11 orders dated 19.01.2006, on 27.01.2006, imposing penalty under Section 45A of the K.G.S.T. Act, overruling its objections. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Exts.P9, P10 and P11. The petitioner submits, the impugned orders are vitiated by mala fides and they have been passed to wreak vengeance on it, which exposed the corruption in commercial tax check-posts, in public interest. The pleading of the petitioner in this regard is contained in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition, which reads as follows:

“The petitioner’s newspaper Malayala Manorama is having the largest circulation among newspapers in Malayalam. The petitioner’s newspaper has published reports and articles of great public interest and matters vitally affecting the rights of dealers under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, who are subjected to harassment at the check posts by subjecting them to payment of illegal gratification. Such illegal