TEJ SHOE TECH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that without supplying a copy of the order dated June 26, 2001, the respondents had encashed the bank guarantee furnished by it for an amount of Rs. 5,50,000. It is alleged that the proceedings were wholly arbitrary and no opportunity was given to the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Salil Sagar appearing for the respondents states that the assessing authority shall examine the matter afresh. The order passed on June 26, 2001 may be deemed to have been withdrawn. In case it is found that no penalty is leviable, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner. The needful shall be done within one month from today.

(3.) Mr. Jhingan states that the petitioner shall appear before the authority on May 27, 2002. He further states that the action of the respondents in encashing the bank guarantee was illegal. Even if an order of penalty is passed, the petitioner has a right to file an appeal by depositing only 25 per cent of the amount levied by the Assessing Authority.