ORDER Messrs. Hopkins & Williams (Travancore) Ltd., who are the petitioners herein under an agreement with the State worked mineral sands available in the State in the manner described in the agreement. The stuff produced is exported by them as agents for and on behalf of the State under the agreement. When the firm was thus functioning, the Travancore General Sales Tax Act (XVIII of 1124) was passed. That Act provided for the registration of a dealer with the liability to pay a registration fee annually and for consequence of default in payment. Registration was necessary to enable collection of sales tax from the purchasers. The petitioners, therefore, on 9th November, 1949, applied for registration indicating therein their status as agents under the State which may render them not liable as dealers under the Act. Registration was stated therefore to be not really necessary but was asked for with a view to facilitate collection of the sales tax. The fee due to be paid along with the application was remitted. Subsequently there was default in payment of the fee. The amount of fee defaulted to be paid as also a further amount by way of penalty for such non-payment were demanded of the petitioners by the 1st respondent who is the officer concerned. Objection is taken to this demand in this application. As regards the liability to pay the fee for registration, and during the time that that registration subsists, it would appear to be an obligation arising out of the registration actually made and does not depend upon the liability to register. Registration having been in fact made, though under the circumstances above-mentioned, the petitioner cannot escape liability to pay the fee. Being agents of the State they might be entitled to credit for the amount paid by way of fee in settling the accounts with the principal but payment has first to be made so long as the registration stands. The penalty for non-payment demanded of the petitioners stands on a different footing. Section 19 of Act XVIII of 1124 which corresponds to the same section in the later Act, XI of 1125, provides that if the fee payable by a dealer for registration be not paid, he shall render himself liable on conviction before a Magistrate to certain consequences. The penalty for non-payment demanded of the petitioners stands on a different footing. Section 19 of Act XVIII of 1124 which corresponds to the same section in the later Act, XI of 1125, provides that if the fee payable by a dealer for registration be not paid, he shall render himself liable on conviction before a Magistrate to certain consequences. The next Section 20 in both the Acts provides that when default is committed by a dealer to pay the registration fee it is competent for the State to compound the matter with the defaulter and if the amount fixed for compounding be paid then the party can escape conviction. The penalty that is demanded is sought to be justified by reference to this Section 20. Section 20, as already stated, provides for composition of the offence with the defaulter. Composition, as the word clearly indicates, is a bilateral act as a result of agreement between two parties and the State cannot impose a penalty upon a defaulter and collect the amount due as on composition when the defaulter is not a party to the arrangement. The only course open to the State if the defaulting party does not agree to the composition proposed is to resort to the Magistrate's Court and get an order of conviction leading to its attendant consequences. The first respondent, therefore, does not appear to be in order in having demanded any amount over and above the fee payable for registration, that is Rs. 6 per annum. 2. As regards even this liability to pay the fee, Mr. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Government Pleader, submits that in view of the fact that they are acting as agents of the State, though the 1st respondent may be strictly right in having demanded the fee which became due purely on account of the registration, the Government will consider the question of realising it from the petitioners and will consider further as to the proper course to be adopted in this matter in the future so far as the petitioners are concerned. 3. Another complaint raised in this application relates to the levy of sales tax for the years 1125, that is 1949-50, and 1950-51. Whether the latter is provisional assessment or final assessment does not appear to be clear. But whatever that may be, it makes no difference so far as the present petition is concerned. 3. Another complaint raised in this application relates to the levy of sales tax for the years 1125, that is 1949-50, and 1950-51. Whether the latter is provisional assessment or final assessment does not appear to be clear. But whatever that may be, it makes no difference so far as the present petition is concerned. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that as the transactions of sale themselves constituted and resulted in the export of the commodity sold, they are immune from the levy of sales tax as decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Bombay Co. Ltd. ([1952] S.C.R. 1112; 3 S.T.C. 434). Mr. Balakrishna Iyer, learned Government Pleader, submits that in view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the circumstance that all the facts necessary to apply the law as laid down therein may not have been ascertained before the levy was made and in view further of the fact that even according to the petitioners, they were acting only as agents of a known principal, namely, the State, whether the refund claimed should be allowed even if the initial levy was unjustified, are matters which should be considered by the State afresh and to enable the Government to do so and to adjust the rights of parties according to the law, the orders complained of may be vacated and the case sent back to the Sales Tax Officer concerned. The impugned orders are accordingly vacated, and the papers sent to the 1st respondent for the aforesaid purpose. There will be no order for costs in this application under the circumstances. Ordered accordingly.