JUDGMENT K. Sreedharan, J. - Petitioner is a dealer in building materials, such as cement, iron and steel, sanitary goods, etc. He is having registration under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Second respondent conducted an inspection of the shop of the petitioner. Irregularities were noticed in the maintenance of the accounts. Petitioner was directed to produce his books of accounts and other documents for verification. Petitioner submitted his explanation and records, through his representative. Finding that the explanation is not acceptable, exhibit P4 notice dated July 31, 1990 was issued. Petitioner was told that he has committed an offence punishable under section 46(1)(c) of the Act, and that he is at liberty to get the same compounded departmentally under section 47 of the Act. Petitioner was not agreeable to the course suggested to have the offence compounded. Thereupon he was served with exhibit P6 notice under section 45A of the Act. Petitioner submitted his explanations. After considering the entire matter, second respondent issued exhibit P8 order imposing the penalty under section 45A of the Act. This order is under challenge. The learned counsel representing the petitioner raised two contentions, one, the second respondent initiated action under section 46(1)(c) of the Act by issuing exhibit P4 notice. Without exhausting the steps under section 46(1)(c), he was clearly in error in proceeding under section 45A of the Act. The second contention is that the second respondent did not apply his mind to the quantum of penalty to be imposed on the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader submitted that prosecution under section 46(1)(c) is independent of the proceedings under section 45A. The second respondent was justified in changing his intention to drop the proceedings under section 46(1)(c) and to proceed against the petitioner under section 45A of the Act. It is further submitted by him that second respondent had applied his mind to all relevant aspects while issuing exhibit P8 order. In that order he has categorically found that the petitioner maintained false accounts and hence liable to be penalised under section 45A of the Act. So, the order exhibit P8 is not open to challenge under article 226 of the Constitution. In that order he has categorically found that the petitioner maintained false accounts and hence liable to be penalised under section 45A of the Act. So, the order exhibit P8 is not open to challenge under article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner has got a case that the second respondent did not apply his mind to the quantum of penalty to be imposed, that aspect can be agitated before the revisional authorities. In this view, it is not necessary for this Court to interfere with exhibit P8. Exhibit P4 notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why prosecution under section 46(1)(c) should not be launched against him. In pursuance to the said notice, no prosecution was launched. The power of the second respondent under section 45A is independent of the prosecution contemplated under section 46. So, the mere fact that the second respondent happened to issue exhibit P4 notice, will not in any way disentitle him from taking steps under section 45A. Viewed in this line, I do not find any vice in the action pursued by the second respondent. Since he has passed orders under section 45A, no prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner in respect of the same facts [section 46A(3) of the Act]. For these reasons, I overrule the first objection raised by the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 108/1990 (P. D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax [1992] 85 STC 337 (Ker.)) took the view that the authorities are not to levy the maximum amount of penalty without independent evaluation and appraisal. Where penalty has been levied, mechanically without disclosing the grounds to support the levy of the maximum penalty, the order is not sustainable. In the impugned order, exhibit P8, the second respondent has not applied his mind to the reasons for imposing the maximum penalty. On that ground exhibit P8 order has to be interfered with by this Court. In the result, I dispose of the original petition by quashing exhibit P8 to the limited extent indicated herein below. The second respondent is directed to examine the issue afresh to decide the quantum of penalty that is to be imposed on the petitioner. He is not to mechanically levy the maximum penalty without disclosing the grounds warranting the same. In the result, I dispose of the original petition by quashing exhibit P8 to the limited extent indicated herein below. The second respondent is directed to examine the issue afresh to decide the quantum of penalty that is to be imposed on the petitioner. He is not to mechanically levy the maximum penalty without disclosing the grounds warranting the same. Final order under section 45A of the Act should be passed against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms. Petition disposed of accordingly.