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 applica