VENKATADRI, J.

This batch of writ petitions raises a common question of law, viz., whether a revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under section 33 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Board of Revenue under section 35, against a notice by way of composition under section 46 of the Act. The petitioners are alleged to have committed various offences, such as, failure to send A return as required under rule 9(1), failure to maintain true and correct accounts and records as required under section 40, failure to send an advance estimate of turnover as required under section 13, contravention of restriction or condition notified under section 17 (section 18), wilful submission of untrue return punishable under section 15(2)(a) and the like. Composition of the offences aforesaid is provided in section 46 of the Act. Under the section, the prescribed authority may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence against this Act, a certain sum specified in the section, by way of composition of such offence. In these cases, the Commercial Tax Officer, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, as the case may be, issued notice called the compounding notice to the petitioners intimating them that, in the opinion of the officer, the petitioners had committed the offence punishable under section 45 of the Act, and that, before they were prosecuted, the said officer was willing, under the power conferred on him by law, to give them the option of compounding the offence by payment of the amount mentioned therein within the time mentioned therein. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners can question the legality of the levy of the compounding fee or even the quantum thereof, by filing a revision to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 33 or the Board of Revenue under section 35 of the Act. Section 33 of the Act says that any person objecting to an order passed or proceeding recorded under this Act for which an appeal has not been provided for an section 31 may within a period of thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order or proceeding was served on him file an application for revision of such order or proceeding to the Deputy Commissioner. Section 35 of the Act confers similar powers of revision on the Board of Revenue. The department has taken up the stand that there is no provision for an appeal against a compounding notice much less a revision, under the Act. The notice of composition is neither an order nor a proceedings under the Act and therefore revision is not entertainable. According to the department, once a sum of money for compounding an offence was offered and the amount was paid, there could not be any question of the dealer being aggrieved so as to question the compounding notice. Of course, if the offer is not accepted by the dealer, be is liable for prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that such a stand is neither just no reasonable. The petitioners have a real grievance against such a notice arbitrarily demanding the payment of the sum under section 46 of the Act. Learned counsel says that in some cases the amount is uncalled for, unwarranted and unjust, in some cases the compounding notice is defective, in some other cases the levy of the maximum compounding fee is not called for and in other cases excess fees have been levied. Learned counsel Sri Chandrasekhara Sastry submits that in one case the petitioner was levied penalty for suppression of turnover, that in the appeal the penalty was set aside, that before he succeeded in the appeal, the officer concerned levied a compounding fee of Rs. 1, 000, and that after he succeeded in the appeal, he wanted to file a revision against the levy of Rs. 1, 000. He was not allowed to file a revision. According to learned counsel, under section 33 of the Act there is a provision for revision because composit