The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of principles of natural justice and the enforcement of fundamental rights justify the invocation of Art.226 of the Constitution, even if an effective alternate remedy is available.

AR.Lakshmanan, J.

1. Heard Mr.Antony Dominic for appellant and Govt. Pleader for respondents.

2. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the first respondent herein dated 24-11-1998 levying a penalty of Rs.58,61,041/- being double the amount of turnover tax imposed on the appellant under Sec.45A(d) of the KGST Act, 1963 for filing incomplete returns for the period 4/98 to 8/98, the appellant filed the original petition to quash Ext.P4 as violative of the principles of natural justice and for a direction to the respondents to grant reasonable opportunity to the appellant to file objection and a hearing before orders, if any are passed under Sec.45A of the Act. A learned Single Judge dismissed the original petition on the ground that the writ petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.45A(3) of the Act and that the petitioner had sufficient time and opportunity to respond to the notice and hence there is no violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Judge had also found that there is no error in the proposal and no ground is made out for quashing Ext. P5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant has filed the above appeal. In our opinion, the order impugned in the original petition cannot stand since the first respondent had passed the said order without affording a reasonable opportunity which was specifically asked for under Ext.P2 to extend the time till 10-12-1998 to give a reply to the show cause notice. The first respondent disposed of Ext.P2 on 23-11-1998 by a non speaking order under Ext.P3 and Ext. P4 order was issued on 24-11-1998 levying penalty of Rs. 58,61,041/- and served on the appellant both Exts.P3 and P4 together. The officer has also decided the matter on merits without hearing the appellant. Such procedure has been deprecated and frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The case of the appellant is that it is engaged in manufacture and sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor. The entire sales are made by them to Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. which is the monopoly of wholesale marketing agency for distribution of liquor in Kerala and by virtue of item 53 of the 1st Schedule of the KGST Act sales tax is payable on the sale of liquor only by Beverages Corporation at the point of sale by them and that the appellant is liable to pay turnover tax under Sec.5(2C)(l)(b) of the Act at the rate of 5% on the sales turnover. The appellant has been remitting turnover tax on the sales price issued by them. However, the first respondent issued provisional assessment orders for the period in question demanding turnover tax on the excise duty paid by Beverages Corporation also. The first respondent issued a notice proposing to levy penalty under Sec.45 A of the Act for non payment of turnover tax on excise duty. The notice was received by the appellant on 17-10-1998 under Ext. P1. The appellant applied for 30 days time to file objection on 23-10-1998. Since their General Manager was out of India, the appellant by their letter dated 16-11-1998, applied for time till 10-12-1998 to file objection to Ext. P1. According to the appellant, the letter dated 16-11-1998 was handed over to the first respondent personally. However, the first respondent, as already stated, issued a communication dated 23-11-1998 rejecting the request for time alongwith a copy of order dated 24-11-1998 levying penalty. In the writ appeal, the appellant questioned the correctness of Ext.P4. According to the appellant, the compliance of natural justice is mandatory because Sec.45A of the Act does not provide for imposition of penalty without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant approached the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court having regard to the nature of grievance and the gross violation of natural justice. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on the grounds stated in his order. Learned counsel for the appellant cit