Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. Civil Miscellaneous No. 2299 of 2002 is allowed. Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tin containers. It filed its returns regarding sales for the assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Authority found that the petitioner was liable to pay a net amount of Rs. 39,697 after adjusting the amount already paid under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 . It also noted that the petitioner had not made the deposit of the tax on account of the fact that it wanted adjustment against the amount of Rs. 62,620, which was lying with the department for the assessment year 1993-94 on account of payment of purchase tax. The revisional authority gave a notice dated March 12, 2001 to the petitioner calling upon it to appear on March 22, 2001. The representative of the petitioner appeared and requested for adjournment to a date in the first week of April. However, the case was adjourned to March 29, 2001. The petitioner alleges that its representative Ashok Kumar, the Office Assistant went to the office of the revisional authority at 11 0 clock but the officer was not present. He waited till 12 noon and came back thereafter. However, the revisional authority passed the order dated March 29, 2001. A copy of the order is at annexure P-3. By this order, the petitioner has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7,87,991. A perusal of the order shows that a total penalty of Rs. 6 lacs was imposed. An amount of Rs. 1,54,000 approximately was also levied by way of interest. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner alleges that the order passed by the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. The money deposited by the petitioner was already lying with the department. Nothing was due from it. A penalty of Rs. 6 lacs has been arbitrarily imposed. On this basis, it is claimed that the impugned order be quashed. 4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The money deposited by the petitioner was already lying with the department. Nothing was due from it. A penalty of Rs. 6 lacs has been arbitrarily imposed. On this basis, it is claimed that the impugned order be quashed. 4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. It has been pleaded by way of a preliminary objection that the order passed by the Assessing Authority was examined. Since, certain illegalities and improprieties were noticed, the revisional authority had given notice to the petitioner. It can file an appeal under Section 39 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 against the impugned order. However, it has been admitted that the penalty is in excess of the maximum prescribed under the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. It is undoubtedly true that by notice dated March 12, 2001 the petitioner had been directed to appear on March 22, 2001. A representative of the petitioner had appeared before the revisional authority and made a request for adjournment. The case was adjourned to March 29, 2001. This was so done despite the fact that the representative of the petitioner had made a prayer for a date in the first week of April. The petitioners request was not unreasonable, Yet, it was not granted. Still further, there is a categorical averment on behalf of the petitioner that Ashok Kumar had gone to the office of the revisional authority on March 29, 2001. Till 12 noon, the officer was not present in his office. Still, ex parte order was passed. Still further, on perusal of the order it is prima facie clear that the penalty was arbitrarily imposed. This fact has even been conceded in the written statement. 7. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we are satisfied that relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal would place it under an avoidable burden of depositing the tax which may be in excess of its liability. In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the authority had not acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It had failed to grant due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the action is apparently violative of the principles of natural justice. Still further, the action of the authority in imposing a penalty of Rs. In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the authority had not acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It had failed to grant due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the action is apparently violative of the principles of natural justice. Still further, the action of the authority in imposing a penalty of Rs. 6 lacs was not warranted by the circumstances of the case and the express provisions of law. 8. Resultantly, we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The order dated March 29, 2001 a copy of which is at annexure P-3, is quashed. The case is remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The authority shall ensure that the petitioner is given adequate opportunity to produce the relevant material before it. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.