Govinda Bhat, C.J:— The petitioner is an Assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. His business premises was inspected on 27th September, 1969 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore. He discovered several irregularities which in his opinion, amounted to an offence under Section 26 of the Act punishable under Section 29. Thereupon he issued a notice to the Assessee dated 29th September, 1969 asking him to appear before him within seven days and show cause why penal action should not be instituted for the offence committed and also giving the Assessee an opportunity to compound the offence. This notice was served on one Shekarappa on behalf of the Assessee on the same day who made an endorsement admitting the offence and offering to compound the offence by payment of composition fee which may be fixed by the Department. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the offer made by the Assessee and Tiroposed the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000. The Assessee paid the composition fee of Rs. 1,000 as per his letter dated 29th September, 1969 and that was signed by one Shekarappa on behalf of the Assessee. Thus the offence committed by the Assessee was compounded and further proceedings were dropped as per the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore, dated 29th September, 1969. Against the said order, dated 29th September, 1969 the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gulbarga Division, Bellary, who, by his order dated 26th November, 1969 rejected the same on the ground that appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter, the Assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, who also rejected the same on the ground that it was not maintainable.
2. In this revision petition the Assessee has challenged the decision of the Tribunal and the contention urged is that the order dated 29th September, 1969 is appealable falling under Section 20(1) of the Act. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to determine whether an order fixing the compounding fee is appealable or not. What was done by the order dated 29th September, 1969 was to drop the proceedings in view of the fact that the Assessee agreed to compound the offence and paid the compounding fee. By the dropping of the proceedings, the Assessee cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. Therefore, the authorities below were right in the view they have taken that the order dated 29th September, 1969 was not appealable. Accordingly, this S.T.R.P is dismissed, but without costs.