( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act" for short ). It is a proprietary concern. It has filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 15. 5. 2003 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent-Commercial Tax Officer under Section 28-A (4) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 52,640/- on the ground that the original documents required to be produced for transportation of the goods in question were not produced at the time of inspection instead only xerox copies of such documents were produced. The only ground taken for quashing of the impugned order is that the same has been passed in violation of the statutory procedure laid down under the Explanation to Section 28a (4) of the Act. The Explanation to Section 28a (4) of the Act reads as under:-"explanation - Where the destination of the goods to be delivered in the State is not less than one hundred Kilometers, from the check post or barrier or any other place at which the goods vehicle or boat is intercepted, reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be a period of not less than ten days". ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he had placed order for supply of staplers with M/s Kanin (India) Pvt. ltd. , Ludhiana. The goods ordered were despatched by the manufacturer from Ludhiana to Bangalore through a public transporter M/s Nitco Roadways and the same was being carried in truck bearing No. HR-38a-6510. On 9. 5. 2003 the truck was inspected on Dhulkhed sales tax check post, Indi Taluk, Bijapur. On being asked the driver of the truck produced only xerox copies of the documents. Accordingly he was served with a show cause notice for his explanation as to why he should not be subjected to penalty as provided under Section 28a (4) of the Act on 9. 5. 03 itself giving him ten days time. But curiously the commercial tax officer at the check post did not have the patience of waiting for ten days and he passed the impugned order only with six days i. e. , on 15. 5. 2003. The procedure followed by the commercial tax officer is clearly in violation of the legislative mandate of providing not less than ten days time. 5. 2003. The procedure followed by the commercial tax officer is clearly in violation of the legislative mandate of providing not less than ten days time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the commercial tax officer should have waited for ten days to file the explanation by the driver. According to him the CTO has erred in passing the impugned order without waiting till that date which is statutorily prescribed. ( 3 ) SRI B. Anand, learned Government Advocate, could not dispute either the facts stated in the writ petition nor the statutory provisions referred to above. ( 4 ) ARTICLE 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no tax shall be collected or levied except by the authority of law. The law in the context includes both substantial as well as procedural law. In the present case the penalty has been levied in clear violation of the law laid down by the competent Legislature. It cannot be disputed that in the wider constitutional connotation penalty is also covered by the word "tax". Accordingly the impugned order is quashed". If so advised, the petitioner, and/or the driver concerned, may file his show cause within a week from today before the respondent and if a show cause is so filed the respondent will give due consideration thereby and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the petitioner wants to have the personal appearance he may make a prayer to that effect and the respondent authority may grant the personal hearing to the petitioner. The order must be passed by the respondent within two weeks from today. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed ( 6 ) A carbon copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on an application made before the court officer. --- *** --- .