5.Having steered clear of this issue, we consider as to the correctness of the other ground on which the writ petition was dismissed, namely, on the ground on not availing alternative remedy provided under the provisions of the Act. The appellant has challenged the order passed by the third respondent as being without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justices and ab initio void. If such was the contention raised, the respondents are duty bound to define the matter by placing materials before the Court and if the appellant is able to satisfy the Court that the demand raised by the third respondent is without jurisdiction or there has been violation of principles of natural justice, then the writ petition is maintainable. Having said so, we have examined the order dated 23.02.2006 which is an assessment order under Section 8/9 of the Act which was impugned in the writ petition. Though the third respondent states that the appellant had filed additional objections on 21.02.2006, the third respondent has recorded a finding that no fresh grounds have been pointed out by the appellant. On going through the second objection dated 21.02.2006, we find that the additional grounds have been raised by the appellant, more particularly on the issue whether a Reach Stacker is a heavy capacity mobile crane or a construction equipment. Therefore, the third respondent is not correct in observing that no additional grounds have been raised by the appellant. That apart, the levy of penalty twice the amount of tax has also been questioned by the appellant on the ground that unless and until the third respondent has specifically recorded a finding of wilful disobedience of any of the statutory provisions, penalty cannot be levied. Admittedly, the appellant has filed the return under Section 7 of the Act. Thus, the question would be whether levy of penalty was justified or not.
