JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner is a retail seller of motor spirits as well as high speed diesel oil. He was granted a registration certificate under the U. P. Sales of Motor Spirit and Diesel Oil Taxation Act, 1939. He committed delay in paying the tax on the monthly sales of motor spirits as well as diesel oil. On March 1, 1973, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice to the petitioner stating that his registration certificate has been placed under suspension and requiring him to show cause why the certificate be not cancelled and why the unpaid amounts of tax be not realised as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner made an application by way of showing cause, on a consideration whereof the Prescribed Authority passed an order on 14th of March, 1973, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. It appears that no action to cancel the registration certificate of the petitioner was taken. The petitioner filed an appeal. He challenged the validity of the order of suspension also. The Excise Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged these orders by the present writ petition. 2. It was urged that the order of suspension was illegal because it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is unnecessary to go into the merits of this point, because soon after the suspension order was passed the petitioner obtained an order of stay from the Appellate Authority. Thereafter when the proceedings were finalised by the Prescribed Authority no order of cancellation was passed, with the result that the order of suspension pendente lite came to an end on March 14, 1973, when the Prescribed Authority passed the order imposing penalty. Even if it be assumed that an order of suspension pendente lite could not validly be passed without hearing the dealer, no useful purpose will be served by going into the merits of that question or setting aside the order of suspension, because it has already exhausted itself. 3. It was then urged that the Prescribed Authority was in error in imposing penalty to the tune of double the amount of tax which was not paid within time. For instance, for the month of October, 1972, an amount of Rs. 53/12, which was due payable by 30th November, 1972, was actually paid on 19th December, 1972. For this default a penalty of Rs. For instance, for the month of October, 1972, an amount of Rs. 53/12, which was due payable by 30th November, 1972, was actually paid on 19th December, 1972. For this default a penalty of Rs. 100/- has been imposed. Similarly, for the delay in depositing sales tax amounting to Rs. 187.04 for November, 1972, a penalty of Rs. 375/- has been imposed. For the month of December, 1972, a sum of Rs. 268.72 remained unpaid by the due date. For it a penalty of Rs. 525/- has been imposed. It is thus evident that the Prescribed Authority has imposed penalty to the extent of virtually double the amount of the tax which was deposited with delay. In substance the petitioner has to pay double the amount of the tax by way of penalty in addition to having already paid the amount of tax. 4. Sec. 3 of the Act provides :- "3(1). There shall be levied from, every retail dealer and collected in such manner as may be prescribed, a tax on the retail sales of motor spirit and diesel oil at such rate or rates, not exceeding 10 paise per litre in the case of motor spirit, and 7 paise per litre in the case of diesel oil, as the State Government may by notification in the gazette specify in that behalf. (2) If any tax payable under Sub-sec. (1) is, not paid within the time prescribed, the Prescribed Authority may, in lieu thereof recover any sum not exceeding double the amount of the tax so unpaid, or any smaller sum above the amount of the tax, which such Authority may think it reasonable to recover." 5. It is evident that the amount which can be recovered in addition to the amount of tax cannot be more than the amount of the tax itself. The Prescribed Authority has been authorised to recover in lieu of the tax payable a sum not exceeding double the amount of the tax so unpaid. In other words, the total amount that can be recovered for non-payment of the tax is double the amount of the tax, and no more. If the dealer has, although with delay, deposited the amount of tax, the penalty imposable cannot exceed the amount of the tax, because the total amount of the unpaid tax and penalty cannot exceed twice the amount of the unpaid tax. 6. If the dealer has, although with delay, deposited the amount of tax, the penalty imposable cannot exceed the amount of the tax, because the total amount of the unpaid tax and penalty cannot exceed twice the amount of the unpaid tax. 6. The authorities below have relied upon rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 16 provides:- "16(1) The tax shall be payable monthly in respect of the retail sales of the last proceeding month. (2) If the amount of the tax is not deposited within one month of the close of a month, the District Magistrate may recover it or any sum in addition to it not exceeding double the amount of the tax in arrears which he may consider reasonable as arrears of land revenue: Provided that the District Magistrate may on sufficient cause being shown by the retail dealer and subject to such conditions as he may deem proper set aside the whole or any portion of the amount levied by him under the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Act over and above the tax unpaid." 7. This rule no doubt authorises the recovery of a sum upto double the amount of the unpaid tax, in addition to the recovery of the unpaid tax. In this respect the rule goes beyond the purview of Sec. 3(2) of the Act under which the maximum that can be recovered is the unpaid tax and an amount equal to the unpaid tax. The words "in addition to its occurring in Rule 16(2) being ultra vires Sec. 3(2)" are void. The authorities below were in error in relying upon this rule to impose penalty to the extent of twice the amount of the unpaid tax in addition to the tax. 8. The maximum penalty that can be imposed was the amount of tax which was deposited with delay. This amount comes to Rs. 508.89 as against the amount of Rs. 1,000/- penalty in respect of the motor spirits. 9. It was argued that the principles of natural justice were applicable to the proceedings for imposition of penally and the petitioner was entitled to show cause before the penalty was levied. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice apply only when there is no statutory provision prescribing the procedure that may be adopted in such matters. 9. It was argued that the principles of natural justice were applicable to the proceedings for imposition of penally and the petitioner was entitled to show cause before the penalty was levied. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice apply only when there is no statutory provision prescribing the procedure that may be adopted in such matters. The proviso to Rule 16(2) provides for an opportunity of showing cause to the retail dealer after the Prescribed Authority has fixed the amount of penalty under Sec. 3(2) of the Act. In view of this statutory provision it is clear that the dealer has an opportunity of showing cause against the levy of penalty before it is recovered from him. Since the statutory provisions conferred a right to show cause at a particular stage of the matter, the principles of natural justice cannot be superimposed on the prescribed statutory procedure. In the circumstances it cannot be held that the retail dealer has any right to an opportunity of showing cause before the Prescribed Authority initially fixes the amount of penalty. The imposition of penalty cannot hence be interfered with on this ground. 10. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The amount of penalty is reduced by Rs. 491.11 P. The respondents are directed not to recover this amount of Rs. 491.11 P. in pursuance of the impugned order imposing a sum of Rs, 5,000/- as penalty on the petitioner. In view of the divided success the parties will bear their own costs.