Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, CJ. Petitioner is an arrack shop contractor (licencee). During 1993-94 admittedly he had opted for the benefit under S.7(14) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The sub-section gives option to the assessee to pay tax in accordance with clause (v) of S.5 or at 40% of the rental amount payable by him under the Abkari Act for the licence, less tax paid for the purchase of arrack on the first sale point. Challenge against sub-section (14) is no longer available in view of the Bench decision of this court in Jyothish Kumar & others v. State of Kerala & others (95 STC 527). 2. Having full well realised the aforesaid position petitioner's counsel argued that though the petitioner had opted for payment of tax under S.7(14), he retracted from it as per Ext. P2 letter and therefore he can no longer be held liable for the tax as envisaged under S.7(14). Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not opt initially to invoke the benefit under S.7(14) and it was only on 31-10-1993 when he was called to the office of the first respondent and was told orally to agree to the compounding of tax as provided under S.7(14), he chose to do so. It is the admitted case that on 4-11-1993 the first respondent had accepted the application filed by the petitioner for compounding of tax and accordingly Ext. P1 order was issued. It was on 4-12-1993 that the petitioner submittedExt.P2 letter to exempt him from compounding of tax. Petitioner's contention is that without giving any reply to Ext. P2 the second respondent at the initiative of the first respondent issued Exts. P3 to P6 for realisation of the tax under revenue recovery proceedings. According to the petitioner initiation of revenue recovery proceedings cannot be sustained as he had retracted from the compounding scheme as per Ext. P1 for valid reasons. In Ext. P2 petitioner has admitted that he had applied for compounding for remittance of Sales Tax at 40%. It is stated that he could not remit the tax for the following easons: "(1) The supply of Arrack from Govt. distilleries was low and on that account the sales are also low. 2. We have not purchased spirit from outside the State so far. As per our accounts the supply of Arrack from 1-4-1993 to 30-10-1993 was only 20186 litres. distilleries was low and on that account the sales are also low. 2. We have not purchased spirit from outside the State so far. As per our accounts the supply of Arrack from 1-4-1993 to 30-10-1993 was only 20186 litres. Even valuing at Rs. 100/- per litre the sales turnover would come to only Rs. 20,18,600/-. The Sales tax due for the seven months at 12.5% comes to Rs. 2,52,325/-." 3. It has. to be considered whether an assessee who has agreed to pay tax under S.7(14) can back out and insist upon assessment of tax in the regular manner. There is no provision under the Act to enable an assessee who has agreed to pay tax as provided under S.7(14) to back out later and claim to be assessed as if he had not agreed to the former course. In the absence of any such provision an assessee cannot retract from what he had agreed on the ground that he could not foresee the difficulties he may have to encounter later. 4. Another contention of the petitioner is that no form has been prescribed as provided under sub-section (15) and so it would not have been possible for him to pay the tax as agreed to by him under sub-section (14) sub-section (15) states that every dealer referred to in sub-section (14) may opt to pay tax in accordance with that subsection by making an application in the prescribed form to the assessing authority and pay the tax in monthly instalments in the prescribed manner after deduction of the tax paid on purchase of arrack for each month in accordance with the provisions of subsection (14). The above plea is too technical deserving acceptance. As the tax to be paid by the assessee is definite being 40% of the kist amount and to be paid in monthly instalments he certainly knew of the consequences when he agreed to the compounding. Even in the absence of the prescribed form assessee could have paid the tax with a covering letter. 5. It is next contended that the course open to the assessing authority in case of default of payment of tax at compounded rate is to have cancelled the permission given for payment of tax at compounded rate and to assess the dealer in the normal manner as provided under the Act. Clause 2 of Ext. 5. It is next contended that the course open to the assessing authority in case of default of payment of tax at compounded rate is to have cancelled the permission given for payment of tax at compounded rate and to assess the dealer in the normal manner as provided under the Act. Clause 2 of Ext. P1 states that the permission granted is liable for cancellation if the dealer fails to pay the amount fixed and demanded by the assessing authority within the time stipulated in the notice of demand in any month. The said clause enables the assessing authority to cancel the permission granted to the dealer on default. That does not mean that in every case of default the permission is liable to be cancelled! It is for the assessing authority to choose the mode, that is, either to cancel the permission or not. Relying on clause 2 of Ext. P1 petitioner cannot compel the assessing authority to cancel the permission. As the petitioner has agreed to the course of option and as the assessing authority wants only to enforce the same the former cannot dodge payment of tax on the aforesaid plea. We see no merit in the original petition. Original Petition is dismissed.