IN THE HIGH C CURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALC1 DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY CF JUHE 1998 BEPO THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE T IRATH S THAKUR ITIONNo.18812. M/sJ?oonam Trading Company, Me rc hants, Pavagada Road, Y,NHosakote, Tiukur Dist by its Proprietor, Sri.Jogaram, Majors Petitioner, C By SriB,V.Katageri, Adv, ) Sri S,SAngadi. AND: The Asst,Commercial Tax Officer, (Intelligence), TtTh<1TR, Resoondent ( By Sri,K,M.Shivayogiswsmy,Addl,GA ) This writ petition filed orayin to direct the Res ondent t issue refund of collection of comoounding fee of Rs5,OCO/ by the petitioner, etc, This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following order : —2— ORDER Two years after the petitioner me a statement before tte Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Tumkur, admitting discrepancies between the actual stock in hsnd and the Books of Account maintained by kim, and after he offered to commound the offence .d maId the compounding fee, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petiton. The grievance primaril, is tEst the Oficer concerned had no Thrisdiction to either re— ord a statement or to oonmouid the viobtion no matter C offer to 00 50 had come from the Assessee himself, 2, Beard, 3, in so far as the mower to recoa a statement is concerned T see no merit in the submission that the Officer aflz/ou1d not do so, Seo,2n speoificallx empoero the Officer concerned, to demand tne production of Accoint Books and otner dclnents and furnisbtng of any information reling to tne stocks of noods or purchases, alea and deliveries thAreof b: tre tealer ne normation referred to in ec ‘‘ crc ‘e u inwr:tung by the Officer conctrned, and got signed or itrif ed by the person furnishing the same. Sec,2B of the Act, does not in my opinion foroid anj suco e3s procedure let aloce reMer illegal the conse”uent action taker by the Officer on the basis thereof. 4. There is no merit even in the second limb of the petitioner’s case namely that the compounding of the vio lations which were simitted by’ the Asseseee would be Ia— tcrmiu.ible even aen he Asaee*e tal made. a requesqt for ‘caposition. It is not in disoute that .itter the at,te— meat of the Assessee qar recoried, the as e-eee made an application offering to cmb000nd the violation on nay— ment of a sum 3± Rs.5,000/—. This offer ws accepted ‘y the OffIcer concerned and the violations noticed as a rest It of the inapection ozducted by him compounded. Lhe Lssea.ee by reason of the payment if tte cripminSirLg fe eeoapped or at least secured a retrieve from possible pxobecatimi proceecangs against him. 1 ’he argunert ttat compounding cusht to have been preceded by a show—c mast notice doej a)t a’rn( to me. I ‘rn w )arbtand ‘how— cause noti:e oemg ..a’isted .apon in a situ’ tcn tae’t the offic.e.r m.kes an offer t tie Psaeeue in which event, the assee is at a b rt; to a cett or decane the same. But : see no r-t.onale betind ne issue of a t”uu—catse notice in a case a re t’i i se ‘see cans forward with cr offe. to c ceatouM kmSknfs±iswinxas 4ttr.• ..a a the offencet. Th iaze of a phowao we +1cc 1* tie later of ‘the two ntuation would be an exerciee in fuilty. tIre oa,ee 0 istifeato fr • a tence upon a ehow—,c,.e .-ntce even when tte a’eesaee B £ yandw’ lin,zto ape’ dthe ioatxo. 5 • It en 1atlj argued tbet oozpounding—fee collec-’ tea by ‘the ffioer con ‘-rned was in erneqe of the iaxi ma peniie’ble u/e.3 • Øfl ar tree 6’ U ot re •c a WJ that subtieeon ist fail. ?irgtly beea’ice the eti-’ tine hdnxzelfofeed topyth a unt fkg.ttYlO/a ti’warde ocnnand1ng fee. It is not therefere oven to Ii t t nrczd tdq I th a it fre a in ex.ec of recevod waeI%$za1znsnS4Wt than mt we pezei— a 1 1° t ro e of e .3 • e rid y, te petit±oner a2e,t o m r the matter for netnrly two flare after ii t. ‘PC ad eoie4a inunt antt nrceec’atin. Ft the iett”rn’s ajqr sqp oorret ta • n.e n ire p oct. 5 ta t 1 ns it the acordiu of t° “e’tz’ement ‘rd erlirl Jiti trw payment ‘f eOn poun]..ns .,ee was v_tiete - ç u. daP irfl..ert.e and ir’ese, trre’nt ‘e°tnM “ soul’] n rto r ce i’2t-ttt’ for ta:. tnre oe°...e r&tinn e grie’isvre. ?Prxninf —5- therefore that the amoint offered by The petitioner and accepted by the Orficer concerned was n exceas of wnat was mermisslble unoer O€0e31, I see no justification for interferina Wit]. an, such receipt or payment at this distant point of t 4 me at the instsnce of a per son who is hmse1f responsible for bving created such s situation. Having benefitted from the proceedings conducted on the 23rd of December, fl89, I am not in clined to permit the petitioner to turn round and take the benefit of a refund in exercise of te extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, Thirdly the anount of compounding fee chargeable under Sec,31 depends upon the ture and the gravity of the offence It is not ss though a flat rate cf Rs,1000/— is avplicab’e for all kind of olatrons ander the Act, so that any pay ment in ece if that amount could he said to be legally impermissib’ e 6. There is no merit in tbs wrrt petition which fatl wIth costs asses9ed at Rs, 4 5O/— I Sal JUDGE