JUDGMENT V. V. KAMAT, J. This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India relates to the penalty proceedings under section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. There are three orders : (exhibit P3) of the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Alappuzha; (exhibit P5) the first revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Alappuzha and also the second revisional order (exhibit P8) of the Member, Board of Revenue (Taxes), Trivandrum. 2. The last impugned order records that what was urged that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is not given to the petitioner by the Intelligence Officer in pursuance of issuance of notice on October 26, 1993. In regard to this contention raised following are the observations at page 45 of the record of the petition at exhibit P8 : "The petitioner on receipt of the notice had only filed a reply as per letter dated November 4, 1993. He has not actually availed the opportunity given to him within the stipulated period allowed by the Intelligence Officer. So the contention cannot be accepted. As far as the other contentions are concerned the first revisional authority has categorically dealt with and he has considerably reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 28,800 as against the penalty of Rs. 47,706 originally imposed by the Intelligence Officer." 3. With regard to this aspect even if the order of the first revisional authority (exhibit P5) is considered the observations at page 35 (exhibit P5) would show that no September 20, 1993 a petition was made and the Intelligence Officer has granted time up to October 4, 1983. It is also recorded that the petitioner filed a detailed reply along with the stock reconciliation statement related to all the items recorded in the shop inspection report. It is further recorded that the verification sheets available in the record also show that the Intelligence Officer has duly considered the statement and objections and suitably amended the proposals and it was thereafter under section 45A notice was issued to the petitioner with a proposal to impose a penalty of Rs. 46,706 and in addition Rs. 1,000 for the non-production of the day book of the business place. A conclusion is recorded that the petitioner had been granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore the arguments advanced in this respect are unsustainable. 46,706 and in addition Rs. 1,000 for the non-production of the day book of the business place. A conclusion is recorded that the petitioner had been granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and therefore the arguments advanced in this respect are unsustainable. It is also observed in the context that the Intelligence Officer has considered all the objections contended before him. Perusal of the order of the Intelligence Officer would show that the petitioner did not produce the day book initially and has been particular to place on record that there are no manufacturing accounts at the factory. He has considered the position on the basis of elements specifically violative of the stock material, leading to the observation that the accounts maintained by the dealer are incorrect and incomplete. In fact this conclusion floats on the surface of the record and in the order of the Intelligence Officer wherein he has considered all aspects in detail with reference to 11 varieties. The petitioner was also given an opportunity of compounding as is available under section 47 of the Act. It is observed that since the unit is carrying on business in manufacturing there is a clear liability of maintenance of account at the stage of manufacturing by keeping the record in regard thereto. In the course of the order it is also observed that the dealer is trying to cook up certain stories and documents to cover up his unaccounted transactions. It is also observed that the dealer is not even ready to mention the stock lying in his factory in the stock register. A conclusion is recorded that all these things are done purposely in such a way that the purchases, stock and sale would not reflect in the books of accounts. 4. Learned counsel submitted that reasonable opportunity would have to be understood as an opportunity to the petitioner to the present for explaining the position. Reading the petition in the light of the conclusions recorded by the three authorities, on facts it is not possible to exercise powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary to note that the original amount of penalty of Rs. 47,706 imposed by the Intelligence Officer has been reduced and modified to Rs. 28,800 because the revisional authority thought that maximum penalty is not called for. It is necessary to note that the original amount of penalty of Rs. 47,706 imposed by the Intelligence Officer has been reduced and modified to Rs. 28,800 because the revisional authority thought that maximum penalty is not called for. The maximum penalty is double the amount of evasion in the context. Considering the above circumstances and the material on record it is not possible to contemplate exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.