JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. The matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petition is an abkari contractor. He is an assessee to sales tax under the Act. There was an inspection in the business premises of the petitioner by the Intelligence Squad, Thiruvananthapuram on June 6, 1988 and they verified the physical stock of certain items found there. Later, the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Thiruvananthapuram (first respondent herein) verified the accounts of the petitioner with reference to the physical stock found on inspection and issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has failed to maintain true and complete accounts of his business during the year 1988-89 for which he is liable for penal action under section 46 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He was also called upon to show cause why prosecution steps should not be initiated against him. At that point of time the petitioner approached the first respondent with an application for compounding the offence departmentally under section 47 of the Act, wherein he has offered to compound the offence pointed out in the notice for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. The first respondent accepted the said offer and issued an order dated October 31, 1988 to the following effect : "the offence under section 46, viz., violation of section 27 committed during the year 1988-89 by M/s. Biju Ramesh and M. K. Prabhakaran, Group Nos. II and IV of Thiruvananthapuram Range, Thiruvananthapuram as directed by the inspection of June 6, 1988 is compounded on payment of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) paid as per Receipt No. 173346 dated October 31, 1988 (exhibit P1). 2. Later on February 14, 1989 the petitioner filed a revision against exhibit P1 order before the Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture Income-tax and Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein he has challenged the amount of compounding fee fixed by the first respondent on the ground that the maximum compounding fee that can be fixed in the case is only Rs. 5,000. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. In second revision the Board of Revenue also affirmed exhibit P1 order. It is against these orders of the respondents that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. 5,000. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. In second revision the Board of Revenue also affirmed exhibit P1 order. It is against these orders of the respondents that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioner seeks to quash exhibit P1 order as affirmed by exhibits P2 and P3 orders and also prayed for a direction to respondents to forbear from giving effect to exhibit P1 order. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture Income-tax and Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein it is stated that verification of accounts and the records with reference to the materials gathered in the inspection conducted on June 6, 1988 revealed certain irregularities and that on the basis of the application for compounding filed by the petitioner, the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Thiruvananthapuram, has compounded the offence for a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the amount was collected as per Receipt No. 173346 dated October 31, 1988. It is also stated that the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that "the amount of compounding fee is seen fixed on the basis of the request of the petitioner". 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner has offered to compound the offence departmentally for the offence of the maintaining true and correct accounts and that he has offered to compound the offence for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. According to him, it is for the first respondent to consider the quantum of compounding fee with reference to the offence alleged in the notice. According to the petitioner, the offence alleged is that he was not maintaining true and correct accounts and thus he violated the provision of section 27 of the Act. According to him, the maximum compounding fee that can be levied in such circumstances under section 47 of the Act is only Rs. 5,000 as specified in section 47(1)(b) of the Act. But the first respondent by his order dated October 31, 1988 mechanically levied compounding fee of Rs. 50,000. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that exhibit P1 order as affirmed by exhibits P2 and P3 orders are vitiated. 5. Heard learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes also. 5,000 as specified in section 47(1)(b) of the Act. But the first respondent by his order dated October 31, 1988 mechanically levied compounding fee of Rs. 50,000. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that exhibit P1 order as affirmed by exhibits P2 and P3 orders are vitiated. 5. Heard learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes also. He has pointed out that the irregularities detected in the inspection conducted on June 6, 1988 are very serious, in that it revealed shortage of arrack to the tune of 3,152 litres and also unaccounted sales of arrack for the period from May 27, 1988 to May 31, 1988 to the tune of 2,834 litres. He accordingly submitted that the irregularities pointed out are very serious and the provisions of section 47(1)(a) of the Act are attracted in such a case. He further submitted that exhibit P1 order was passed strictly in conformity with the offer made by the petitioner in the compounding application and that once the offer made by the petitioner has been accepted by the department by issuing an order and that order has been acted upon by the petitioner by remitting compounding fee by fixed in such order, it is not open to the petitioner thereafter to challenge the said order before high authorities. Learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Sastha Trading Co. v. State of Kerala (1991) 2 KLT 875 and also the decision in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1995] 96 STC 21; (1994) 2 KLT 222 . He accordingly submitted that there is no merit in this original petition and the same has to be dismissed with costs. 6. I have considered the matter. This is a case in which the first respondent, Intelligence Officer, has found on inspection and verification of the accounts with reference to the materials gathered in the inspection that there was shortage of arrack to the tune of 3,152 litres and also unaccounted sales of arrack to the tune of 2,834 litres. It is for this irregularity found in the accounts maintained by the petitioner that the first respondent issued notice to initiate proceedings under section 46 of the Act. It is for this irregularity found in the accounts maintained by the petitioner that the first respondent issued notice to initiate proceedings under section 46 of the Act. It is at this point of time that the petitioner has approached the first respondent with an application for compounding the said offence under section 47 of the Act for a sum not exceeding to Rs. 50,000. The first respondent accepted the said offer contained in the application and passed orders fixing the compounding fee at Rs. 50,000 on October 31, 1988. The petitioner had also remitted the said amount without demur. As per section 47(1) of the Act, the assessing authority or other officer or authority authorised by the Government in this behalf may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence against this Act by way of composition of such offence, (a) where the offence consists of the evasion of any tax payable under this Act, in addition to the tax so payable, a sum of money equal to the amount of tax so payable subject to a minimum of rupees one hundred and maximum of rupees one lakh; and (b) in other cases, a sum of money not exceeding five thousand rupees. The petitioner was aware of the aforesaid provisions while making the application as contemplated under the said section. What is provided in section 47 is for acceptance of the offer made by any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the Act. Knowing fully well the provisions of the Act the petitioner has offered to compound the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had a case that what was admitted was only the offence of not maintaining true and correct accounts and that he had not admitted the offence of any evasion of any tax payable under this Act he would not have offered to compound the offence for an amount exceeding Rs. 5,000. Further if, notwithstanding the facts that he has offered to compound the offence for an amount not exceeding Rs. 50,000, he had a case that the first respondent should not have fixed compounding fee more than Rs. 5,000. Further if, notwithstanding the facts that he has offered to compound the offence for an amount not exceeding Rs. 50,000, he had a case that the first respondent should not have fixed compounding fee more than Rs. 5,000 and if the officer has passed an order contrary to the above he was free not to accept the compounding order by paying the amount fixed in the said order. In the instant case, the petitioner with open eyes has offered to compound the offence for an amount not exceeding Rs. 50,000, the said offer was accepted by the department by passing an order fixing the compound fee at Rs. 50,000 and the petitioner has paid the said amount also without demur. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to canvass the said proceedings by raising a contention that he has not agreed for the amount fixed in the order or that notwithstanding the fact that he has agreed to pay the said amount the officer was duty bound to consider the claim independently and to fix the amount commensurate with the offence alleged. This is not the scheme of section 47. The aforesaid view taken by me is supported by the decisions of this Court in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1995] 96 STC 21; (1994) 2 KLT 222 and in Sree Sastha Trading Co. v. State of Kerala (1991) 2 KLT 875. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this original petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.