JUDGMENT N. DHINAKAR, J. The petitioner was imposed penalty by exhibit P1 order, which when contested, was rejected by the first revisional court through exhibit P4 which was later confirmed by the second revisional court in exhibit P6. The penalty came to be imposed on the petitioner on the ground that when there was an inspection on September 29, 1987 by the 1st respondent, he found stock variation and other defects in the oil mill of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner now submits that the order, exhibit P1, imposing penalty upon the petitioner which was later confirmed by exhibits P4 and P6 came to be passed on an erroneous consideration of the materials and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to rebut the allegations of the 1st respondent as he was not furnished with a copy of the stock register which was admittedly taken away by the department as evidenced by exhibit P2. The said stock register, according to the petitioner, could be obtained from the department only after knocking at the doors of this Court, which directed the department to return the said stock register. In the reply issued by the petitioner, for the proposals to impose penalty, the petitioner in fact sought for the return of the stock register as he stated that without the stock register he will not be able to controvert the allegations made by the 1st respondent. I see some force in the contention of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the order imposing penalty under exhibit P1 which, as stated earlier, was confirmed by exhibits P4 and P6, was passed without the petitioner being given the copy of the stock register which was taken away by the department as evidenced by exhibit P2. It is also not in dispute that after the assessment orders were passed and when it was questioned by way of an appeal, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the penalty came to be imposed upon the petitioner without his being given an opportunity to verify the records seized by the Intelligence Officer and that the records which were seized by the Intelligence Officer were returned to him only after the penalty proceedings were over. As the petitioner was not furnished with copies of the documents on which he wanted to place reliance to successfully contest the penalty proceedings, I feel, that exhibits P1, P4 and P6 have to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. This O.P. accordingly, is allowed. Petition allowed.