JUDGMENT : Petitioner, who owns a metal crusher unit, is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act). They sought permission to pay tax for the assessment year 2014-15 at compounded rates under clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act. The second proviso to clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), dealers having Vertical Shaft Impactor Machines, along with Jaw Crushers, need pay only sixty percent of the tax prescribed for each of such Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine as compounded tax, in addition to the tax payable for the crushing machines. The petitioner had installed a Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine, in addition to crushing machines, in their crusher unit. The output production capacity of the said Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine, according to them, is between 50 to 100 metric tonnes per hour. The compounded tax payable for the said machine under clause (b) of Section 8 of the Act for the relevant years was Rs.22.5 lakhs and the petitioner, therefore, offered to pay 60% of the same namely, Rs.13.5 lakhs in terms of the second proviso to clause (b) of Section 8. The said offer was accepted by the competent authority under the Act and the petitioner, accordingly, paid tax for the said machine on that basis. 2. On 08.10.2014, there was an inspection by the first respondent at the premises of the petitioner. Later, on 07.11.2014, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the first respondent stating that the output production capacity of the Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine installed at the premises is between 150 to 200 metric tonnes per hour; that the compounded tax payable for such a machine is Rs.45 lakhs; that the petitioner, therefore, should have paid 60% of Rs.45 lakhs namely, Rs.27 lakhs as compounded tax for the said machine and that the petitioner has secured permission to pay tax at compounded rates on false declaration. Ext.P6(1) is the notice issued by the first respondent in this regard. In terms of Ext.P6(1) notice, first respondent has called upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty of Rs.27 lakhs shall not be realised from them under Section 67(1) of the Act. Ext.P7 is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ext.P6(1) notice on 10.12.2014. Ext.P6(1) is the notice issued by the first respondent in this regard. In terms of Ext.P6(1) notice, first respondent has called upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty of Rs.27 lakhs shall not be realised from them under Section 67(1) of the Act. Ext.P7 is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ext.P6(1) notice on 10.12.2014. The stand taken by the petitioner in the reply was that they have not made any false declaration and that the declaration made by them as regards the output production capacity of the machine is correct. It is also stated by the petitioner in Ext.P7 reply that the output production capacity of the machine was never tested by the first respondent. It is also stated by the petitioner in Ext.P7 that in any event, if the first respondent intends to proceed with the matter further, an opportunity shall be given to them to establish the output production capacity of the machine by conducting test check. 3. The first respondent did not pursue further the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6(1) notice for about a year. By that time, it is stated that the machine became obsolete. The petitioner therefore replaced the same with another machine. Ext.P10 is the request made by them on 07.09.2015 to their assessing authority thereafter for fixing their tax liability for the year 2015-16. 4. After about seven months, on 26.04.2016, the new incumbent in the office of the first respondent issued Ext.P6(2) notice to continue the proceedings initiated in terms of Ext.P6(1) notice. Ext.P8 is the reply sent by the petitioner to Ext.P6(2) notice adopting the objections raised in Ext.P7 reply. Thereupon, the first respondent issued Ext.P9 notice to the petitioner stating that the objections raised by the petitioner to the notices are not acceptable in the light of the technical data of the machine available in the website of its manufacturer. In terms of the said notice, the petitioner was, therefore, given an opportunity of personal hearing on 30.03.2017. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the first respondent for personal hearing on 30.03.2017 and contended that the technical data available in the website of the manufacturer is not correct and the same, therefore, cannot be the basis of a proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Act. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the first respondent for personal hearing on 30.03.2017 and contended that the technical data available in the website of the manufacturer is not correct and the same, therefore, cannot be the basis of a proceedings under Section 67(1) of the Act. The proceedings in terms of Ext.P6 series notices have now been finalized by the first respondent as per Ext.P16 order imposing a penalty of Rs.27 lakhs on the petitioner. The petitioner impugns the said order straight away in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents supporting the impugned order. The stand taken by the respondents in the statement is that the correctness of the manufacturer's declaration regarding their product in their official website cannot be doubted. It is also stated by the respondents that the writ petitions namely, W.P.(C).Nos.36030 of 2017, 36795 of 2017 and 7973 of 2017 instituted challenging similar orders were not entertained by this Court, leaving the parties to take up the issue in appeal before the appropriate forum. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 7. Section 67(1) of the Act reads thus: “Imposition of penalty by authorities:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 71 if any authority empowered under this Act is satisfied that any person,- (a) being a person required to register himself as a dealer under this Act, did not get himself registered; or (b) has failed to keep true and complete accounts; or (c) has failed to submit any return as required by the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under; or (d) has submitted an untrue, or, incorrect return; or (e) has made any bogus claim of input tax credit, special rebate or refund; or (f) has continued the business during the period of suspension of registration; or (g) has failed to return the unused statutory Forms and Declarations under this Act after the concellation or suspension of the registration; or (h) has not stopped any vehicle or vessel when required to do so; or (i) has failed to comply with all or any of the terms of any notice or summons issued to him by or under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or (j) has acted in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made there under, for the contravention of which no express provision for payment of penalty or for punishment is made by this Act; or (k) has abetted the commission of the above offences; or (l) has abetted or induced in any manner another person to make and deliver any return or an account or a statement or declaration under this Act or rules made there under, which is false and which he either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, such authority may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, an amount not exceeding twice the amount of tax or other amount evaded or sought to be evaded where it is practicable to quantify the evasion or an amount not exceeding ten thousand rupees in any other case: Provided that the authority empowered under this section shall dispose of the case within three years from the date of detection of offence mentioned under this section except where the extension of time is granted by the Deputy Commissioner.” It is seen that Ext.P6 series notices are issued on the basis that the petitioner has acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act by not disclosing the true output production capacity of the Vertical Shaft Impactor Machine installed in their premises in the matter of securing permission to pay tax at compounded rates for the year 2014-15. The petitioner emphatically denied the allegation on the basis of which penalty was proposed on them. The impugned order indicates that the first respondent has confirmed the proposal to impose penalty on the petitioner on the sole basis that the output production capacity of the Vertical Shaft Impacter Machine in terms of the information furnished by the manufacturer of the machine in their website is 120 to 200 metric tonnes per hour. True, the manufacturer of the machine has declared in their website that the capacity of the machine installed by the petitioner in their unit is 120 to 190 metric tonnes per hour. The question, therefore, is as to whether there can be a proceeding for imposition of penalty under Section 67 (1) of the Act solely based on website information. 8. It is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for failure to carry on statutory obligations unless the party obliged to perform the act has either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. Such proceedings being quasi-criminal in nature, the factual allegations, on the basis of which penalty is proposed, must be clearly established from the materials on record. There is absolutely no scope for any inference in such proceedings and the facts are to be established by positive proof. Needless to say, mere suspicion of the facts is not enough. It is apposite in this context to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in U.K. Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KHC 311]. The said case was also one dealing with the scope of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads thus : 12. Section 67 does not confer power to make a reasonable estimate. The suppression or omission must be clearly disclosed from the materials available and there should be evidence of the amounts sought to be suppressed from the turnover. In cases where the same is not discernible, the only option is to make an order of imposition of fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Any suppression detected or rather any file generated on a crime so detected and penalised necessarily gives the assessing authority the power to make estimations to compensate the State against probable omissions and suppressions. In cases where the same is not discernible, the only option is to make an order of imposition of fine not exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Any suppression detected or rather any file generated on a crime so detected and penalised necessarily gives the assessing authority the power to make estimations to compensate the State against probable omissions and suppressions. Such exercise, as is mandated by the statute, has to be regulated by the best judgment of the individual officer which definitely is subject to the principles of reasonableness, proportionality and of course natural justice. Such estimation on best judgment would definitely have to be done with due notice and after affording a personal hearing. Such estimation should be reasonable and should have a nexus with the gravity and frequency of the commission of offences as also the quantum of loss suffered by the State. This exercise, in our opinion, cannot be undertaken by the officer empowered with the power to impose penalty under Section 67 of the Act. Section 67 contemplates imposition of penalty on proof of commission of offences as a measure of deterrence; best judgment assessments are made to compensate the loss caused to the State. The first question hence is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” There is no presumption in law that website information relating to merchandise are correct. It is common knowledge that website information, especially that of merchandise, may or may not be correct. Issues of similar nature have come up before American Courts and the consistent stand taken in such matters is that there cannot be judicial notice as regards website information. Indian Courts had occasion to consider the issue whether print outs of the judgments taken from websites can be relied on and the stand taken is that the same can be relied on, if its authenticity and reliability are not doubted. The pretensions of a manufacturer as regards the products manufactured by them would not bind even the manufacturer, in the absence of fraud, in the light of the principle caveat emptor. In the aforesaid background, there cannot be penal proceedings at all on the presumption that the website information as regards merchandise are correct. The impugned order, in the circumstances, is one issued without jurisdiction. 9. In the aforesaid background, there cannot be penal proceedings at all on the presumption that the website information as regards merchandise are correct. The impugned order, in the circumstances, is one issued without jurisdiction. 9. It is seen that identical cases have not been entertained by this Court on earlier occasions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. But in so far as the issue raised has not been considered in the earlier matters, I do not think that the judgments rendered in said matters would preclude this Court from deciding the matter on merits. The petitioner, of course, has an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Act. Insofar as it is found that the impugned order is one issued without jurisdiction, the alternative remedy available to the petitioner would not also preclude this court from deciding the matter on merits. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P16 order is quashed.