LAWS(KAR)-2001-3-39

GANAPATHY ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE

Decided On March 27, 2001
GANAPATHY ENTERPRISES Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the petitioner's learned advocate as also the learned Government Advocate on merits.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for us to recount in detail the facts and circumstances relating to the imposition of the penalty in this case which amounts to Rs. 26,240. The petitioner's learned counsel did submit that having regard to the nature of the transactions and, the fact that according to the petitioner the goods were virtually being moved from the warehouse to the persons to whom they were to be entrusted for sale, namely, the dealers, that the imposition of the penalty itself is unjustified. Though we have heard the learned advocate on both sides, we refrain from recording any findings with regard to this contention principally because there is some ambiguity with regard to the correct nature of the transaction and secondly because the petitioner's specific case was not stated in so many terms at the earliest point of time. Under the circumstances, we have not entertained the first head of challenge.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner however, the learned counsel has advanced a second submission whereby he points out to us that an amount of Rs. 26,240 which is the penalty imposed on the petitioner is the maximum that is leviable under the circumstances. The submission canvassed is that where the law envisages discretion in an authority, that it must be demonstrated that the discretion is correctly and judiciously exercised and that the order passed is not bereft of these factors. What is pointed out is that there is not a single word in the order justifying the imposition of a deterrent fine. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the movement of goods unaccompanied by requisite documents does ultimately result in loss of revenue in the ultimate analysis and that such clandestine transactions must be severely punished as a deterrent to other like minded persons. He therefore submitted that no special reasons are necessary for the award of the maximum penalty.