IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26275 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.PUSHPAMMA, AGED 45, S/O.SELVARAJ, PROPRIETOR, SHEEJA SAW MILL, PRAVACHAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.DEVADANAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.3. COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 26275 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order, whereunder offence was compounded on payment of compounding fee of Rs. 2 lakhs which is remitted by the petitioner in two instalments in March, 2005. Compounding is under Section 47 of the KGST Act and by compounding the offence, petitioner has avoided prosecution. Besides this Government Pleader submitted that penalty under Section 45A is also not levied on the petitioner even though technically there is no bar against levying penalty. In other words, by making application for compounding and by remitting the compounding fee, petitioner has avoided prosection and penalty, which respondents were free to initiate against the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that compounding is not voluntarily done and petitioner was compelled to do it under threat. I do not think the nature of this allegation can be considered without referring to records, particularly the compounding application made by the petitioner, orders issued thereon and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in making payment. It is seen that the inspection in which 2 irregularities were noticed was conducted on 7.2.2003, notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.2.2005, compounding application was made by the petitioner on 25.2.2005, compounding fee of Rs. 2 lakhs was remitted in two instalment of Rs. 1 lakh each on 11.3.2005 and 28.3.2005 and it is thereafter on 25.4.2005 that Ext.P3 proceedings are issued accepting the compounding. Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition after three months of passing of Ext.P3 order. In any case, since the allegation cannot be decided without reference to evidence disclosed by records, conduct of parties, etc., I give an opportunity to the petitioner to file revision petition against the compounding order before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioner is granted six weeks' time to file revision along with a copy of this judgment, and if any such revision is filed against compounding, revisional authority will entertain the same, call for the records and decide the same on merits. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3