JUDGMENT JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.- This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 15.10.2002 for the reasons set out in the admitting order. The said order for completeness is reproduced below:- "The petitioner is a person registered under the Sales Tax Act as a manufacturer-ct/m-exporter.
'According to learned counsel, the petitioner was audited for the period October, 2000 to June, 2001.
The audit was completed on 27.11.2001. As a result of the said audit, a certain amount was found due from the petitioner, which, according to learned . Counsel, has been paid, together with the penalty thereon.
(2) Thereafter, according to learned counsel, the respondent-department has started proceedings with the object of conducting a second audit for the same period i.e. October, 2000 to June, 2001.
Learned counsel states that this cannot be done except in exceptional circumstances and that, too, after permission from the Collector concerned, in support of this contention, he has referred to the General Order No. 9 of 1999, dated 22.9.1999 issued by the C.B.R. According to the terms of the aforesaid General Order, the re-audit of any registered person cannot be undertaken in routine without there being exceptional circumstances to justify the re-audit.
(3) Learned counsel further states that the respondent-department despite being requested, has not furnished to the petitioner any order issued by the Collector, Sales Tax and nor have any exceptional circumstances been pointed out to the petitioner justifying a second audit.
2. On 29.10.2002, Mr. Mazhar Waseem, Deputy Collector (Audit) of the Sales Tax Department appeared in Court. He stated that there was information affable with the respondent-department justifying the re-audit of the petitioner foe the period between October, 2000 and June, 2001. He has today contended tat among other information which has now become available to the department, it is the view of the department that the petitioner had issued cheques purportedly in favour of its suppliers and those cheques were shown to the respondent-department with the object of obtaining sale tax refund but the same were not presented by^the suppliers and according to the current information available with the department, the said cheques were never encashed. He further states that there is other valid basis, apart from the aforesaid non- encashment of cheques, which prompted the Collector to order re-audit for the aforesaid period between October, 2000 and June, 2001.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a bona fide manufacturer-ct/m- exporter registered with the Sales Tax Department. According to him, the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed. He further states that even the cheques mentioned by the Deputy Collector, Sales Tax can shown by the petitioner to have been presented by its suppliers and encashed. The petitioner, according to him, does not, in fact, object to an audit if there are exceptional circumstances information affable with the respondent department which is sufficing tot justify an audit. However, he contends that such information at the very least should be furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner should be given a hearing to enable it to show to the department that information available with it is either incorrect or there are other reasons sufficient to explain any discrepancy noticed by the department.
4. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondent-department both have some merit, it is, therefore, ordered that in the first instance, the respondent-department shall furnish to the petitioner the information available with it and the reasons which are the basis for the re-audit ordered by the Collector. This will be done within one week from today. Thereafter, the petitioner shall also be afforded a hearing to enable it to explain to the respondent- department its on point of view, it goes without saying that if, indeed, the petitioner has committed any illegality or has deprived the Department of Revenue, the department will be entitled to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Sales Tax Act.
5. This petition is disposed of with the above direction.