Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2007 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 678 - KERALA HIGH COURTMaintainability of Revision petition - Compounding of Offence - rejection of Revision Petition on the ground that the Revision Petition filed is not maintainable, since petitioner himself had compounded the offence departmentally in lieu of the prosecution proceedings - whether the petitioner can be a person who can object to an order passed by the Intelligence Officer of the Department? Held that: - in fact, the petitioner had filed an application before the authorities concerned to compound the offence departmentally. Once the offer is made, it is for the prescribed authority to determine whether the offence should be compounded or not. The process of compounding would be complete only when the money offered is accepted by the authority concerned. Once the compounding of the offence is complete, the person who has committed or reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the Act cannot be aggrieved person. In the present case, an offer was made by the assessee/dealer and it was accepted and there was exchange of money between the assessee and the authorities under the Act. Therefore, compounding the offence was complete. Therefore, it cannot be said that a person can object to such an order made by the authorities under the Act. A person in respect of whom an order of compounding made is not entitled to challenge the same by filing a petition under Section 36 or 38 of the Act - both the authorities, viz., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are justified in rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner/dealer/assessee. Petition dismissed.
|