THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33251 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner, a registered VAT dealer on the rolls of the respondent, statedly is filing monthly returns regularly. The returns were taken up for scrutiny with reference to the information received by the check post authorities. On the allegation that there was a mis-match of certain purchase transactions, the respondent issued notice dated 24.11.2010 in Form VAT 203 for penalising the petitioner. By communication dated 15.11.2010, the petitioner sought fifteen days time to file their objections. Without granting the same, the impugned order “notification and demand for penalty to a VAT dealer” in Form VAT 203 dated 24.11.2010 was issued demanding a penalty amount of Rs.7,93,103/-. This is assailed in this Writ Petition. The matter was called in the fore-noon. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner’s Counsel, a bare perusal would reveal that the respondent did not give any reasons or consideration for initiating penalty proceedings. We, therefore, directed the Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes to produce the file and also directed the concerned officer to be present in the Court. In obedience to our oral order, Sri V.S. Kiran Chowdary, S/o V. Ammanna, 49 years, Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle, Chaminar Division, appeared in the after- noon. After taking instructions from him the Special Counsel for Commercial Taxes Sri P. Balaji Verma submits that the officer passed a separate order containing reasons for levying penalty and that such separate document was enclosed to Form VAT 203 sent to the petitioner. Prima facie, the impugned order does not disclose that a copy of the order/reasons was enclosed thereto. When we enquired again after obtaining instructions from the officer present in the Court, the Special Counsel submitted that the file has had been transferred to the jurisdictional CTO and that the same contains the order impugned in the writ petition as well as the reasons therefor. We entertained a doubt primarily for the reason that the officer who was summoned to the Court did not appear with the file. Therefore, we again issued oral directions to the Special Counsel and as well as his client to produce the file at 4.00 p.m. At 4.00 p.m., the file relating/bearing TIN No.28760167882 has been brought and placed before the Court. A perusal of the same would totally belie the representation made by the Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, from Sri V.S. Kiran Chowdary, respondent C.T.O., that the reasons are annexed to the impugned order. This, in our considered opinion, amounts to misleading the Court and amounts to interfering with the course of justice by such misrepresentation of facts. We treat this as a contempt in the face of the Court. As the impugned order is not supported by any reasons, the same is liable to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the same. The Writ Petition stands allowed. We direct the Registry for the reasons in pre-paragraph to issue suo motu contempt notice to Sri V.S. Kiran Chowdary, S/o V. Ammanna, 49 years, Commercial Tax Officer, Malakpet Circle, Chaminar Division. The Contempt case shall be listed on 29.01.2010. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30.12.2010 MRKR