Once compounding fees are accepted, further challenges related to the assessment cannot be entertained, solidifying the principle of finality in such administrative actions.

1. The identical petitioner is aggrieved with two inter connected actions of the Commercial Taxes Department, which have to be dealt with separately.

2. The petitioner, in WP (C) No. 806 of 2017 is aggrieved with the assessment order, under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity "KVAT Act"], for the year 2014-15 as passed by Ext. P6. The assessment was re - opened on the basis of a compounding effected, on an offence detected. The pre - assessment notice also made proposals for re - opening on other counts also. The petitioner, as of now, is aggrieved with the re - opening made on the compounding made and accepted by the petitioner on the ground that the turnover computed as suppressed by the Intelligence Officer and the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) taken to estimate the sales turnover of the suppressed opening stock.

3. The petitioner also submits that a rectification application was filed from the compounding application on the assessment being finalised. The challenge against the compounding fee determined is also on the ground of irregularity in computing the suppressed turnover and erroneously applying the MRP to arrive at the sales turnover. The rectification application was dismissed as per Ext. P2. The petitioner is said to have filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner as per Ext. P3 against the rejection of the rectification application, which was filed to rectify the order of compounding. The petitioner contends that while the revision is pending, there could be no recovery made as per Ext. P6 assessment, since if the revision is allowed in favour of the petitioner and the compounding fee reduced; the assessment also would be proportionately reduced. The learned Counsel relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Trichur Auto Spares v. State of Kerala, 2014 KHC 346 : 2014 (22) KTR 508 : 2014 (3) KLT 10 : 2014 (3) KLJ 239 : ILR 2014 (3) Ker. 173 to contend that the order of compounding though on the option and admission of the assessee, could be challenged by the assessee.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that compounding cannot be disturbed going by the decision of the Division Bench in Jaya Jewellers v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in WP (C) No. 19641 of 2003 dated 20/09/2007. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the turnover computed as suppression and the sale price proposed to be assessed for the suppression detected were specified in the penalty notice and the same was also evident from Ext. P1. It is also submitted that the value of closing stock detected as suppressed came to only Rs.2,30,000/- while the total suppressed turnover came to more than Rs.59,00,000/-. Further, it is submitted that Ext. P1 was passed after notice of proposal for penalty and the order too was handed over to the petitioner; on the basis of which the petitioner had made the deposit of the compounding fees. There was no appeal filed against Ext. P1. Only at the stage of finalisation of assessment, the petitioner turned around and sought for rectification of the compounding order, which is not permissible under the Act.

5. Jaya Jewellers was a case in which the Division Bench held so:

"12. Admittedly, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the Sales Tax Officers on 13/10/1997. After such inspection, they have found out not only certain anomalies in the stocks but also non - maintainability of books of accounts by the dealer as required under the Rules. Nearly after five days from the date of inspection, the petitioner had filed an application before the authorities expressing his willingness to compound the offence departmentally. There was no threat or coercion from the side of the authorities, directing the p