S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and carrying on business of hulling of paddy in Mandya. On 26th January, 1983 the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), mysore Circle, visited the business premises of the petitioner and on scrutiny of the books of accounts seized some of them. He thereupon issued a show cause notice on 27th January, 1983. The petitioner appeared before the respondent on 27th January, 1983, at Mysore and according to the petitioner's averments made in the writ petition, he prayed for time to file a reply explaining the discrepancies noticed in the show cause notice. It is the allegation of the petitioner that though the respondent permitted the petitioner to file the objections in writing within seven days, he was compelled to give a cheque for Rs. 10,000 on 27th January, 1983, itself when he appeared before him at Mysore. It is further alleged by the petitioner that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to have his say, whether he was willing to compound the offence and to show cause to the notice served on him on the very day. These allegations made in the writ petition are not controverted by the respondent. ( 2 ) THE only point that remains for considerations is whether the levy of compounding fee Rs. 3,000 is a valid levy ? It is to be noted that out of Rs. 10,000 collected by the respondent from the petitioner Rs. 7,000 represents the tax which is said to be due in respect of the alleged suppressed turnover and Rs. 3, 000 is the compounding fee. One another factor which is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner filed his reply before the respondent on 31st january, 1983 and explained the discrepancies noticed by the respondent at the time of inspection. In the said reply the petitioner also urged for the return of the cheque of Rs. 10,000. ( 3 ) SECTION 31 of the Act provides for composition of offences which are enumerated in section 29. So far as the present case is concerned the offence alleged is one of failure to keep true and complete accounts falling under section 29 (1) (e) of the Act. Any composition of the offence alleged should follow only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to explain the discrepancy. So far as the present case is concerned the offence alleged is one of failure to keep true and complete accounts falling under section 29 (1) (e) of the Act. Any composition of the offence alleged should follow only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned to explain the discrepancy. It is obvious that the respondent has, in disregard of these provisions, proceeded to levy the composition fee in a great hurry without even allowing seven days time that was referred to in the show cause notice. ( 4 ) THE show cause notice (annexure C) is therefore liable to be set aside for more than one reason. Firstly, that the said levy is opposed to the procedure that is contemplated under the provisions for levy of composition fee under section 31. Secondly, the respondent has quantified the tax even before the assessment was done on the basis of the alleged suppressed turnover disclosed in the books of accounts. Therefore, the action of the respondent in collecting Rs. 3,000 by way of composition fee and also collecting Rs. 7,000 by way of tax even before the assessment was made, is ex facie arbitrary and speaks of the high-handed way in which the respondent collected Rs. 10,000 when the petitioner appeared in the office on 27th January, 1983. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 10,000 which was recovered by issuing notice to the Canara Bank, Mandya, under section section 14 of the Act, with interest at 6 per cent, within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the respondent. ( 6 ) THE respondent or the assessing authority who has the jurisdiction over the petitioner-assessee is however at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner to complete the assessment for the relevant period.