JUDGMENT ASHOK BHAN, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. No. 253 of 1994 dated February 20, 1995, present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The facts of the case giving rise to this revision in brief are as under : 2. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the purchase and sale of hardwares, steel tubes, valves, PVC pipes, etc. For the assessment year 1990-91 (commencing from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991) the petitioner submitted annual return declaring the gross turnover (GTO) and taxable turnover (TTO) at Rs. 48,48,641.54 and Rs. 18,06,271.52 respectively. 3. During the course of assessment, it was noticed by the assessing authority that the C.T.O. (Intelligence) 11, N. Z., Beigaum, had inspected the business premises of the petitioner on October 11, 1990 for verification of purchase bills of nuts and bolts and found that the same were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. The details of 7 lorry receipts are as under : L.R. No. No. of Bags Value 9527/7-6-90 5 bags -| 958618-6-90 14 " | 959819-6-90 14 " } Rs. 50,000 973413-7-90 12 " | 521713-7-90 5 " -| ----------- 50 bags 5231121-6-90 6 bags -| | 5238122-6-90 14 " }Rs. 20,000 ----------- 20 bags Total ... 70 bags 4. Petitioner admitted the offence in writing that it had effected the said purchases outside the State and not accounted for in the books of accounts maintained by it. The petitioner made an application for compounding the offence which was allowed on payment of Rs. 7,000 as tax and Rs. 10,000 as the compounding fee. Taking note of some other minor discrepancies as well, assessing authority issued proposition notice dated June 18, 1993 stating therein that as the books of accounts were not maintained in the due course of business, the same were liable to be rejected leading to the framing of best judgment assessment. It was proposed to estimate the purchases suppression by 5 times of the suppression and adding gross profit of 15 per cent. Petitioner was invited to file his objection which was filed by him. It was proposed to estimate the purchases suppression by 5 times of the suppression and adding gross profit of 15 per cent. Petitioner was invited to file his objection which was filed by him. In the objections, it was stated that C. T. O. (Intelligence) at the time of inspection did not issue any notice; there was no admission statement filed by the petitioner conceding the purchases. That merely because the petitioner did not raise objections, it could not be treated as consent for the purchases made by the petitioner from undisclosed sources. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected by the assessing authority and estimating the sales at 5 times the suppressed sales and 15 per cent gross profit made an addition of Rs. 4,02,500 to the declared turnover and also levied penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 12(4) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the rejection of the books of accounts, additions made and penalty levied, petitioner filed an appeal under section 20 of the Act before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum Division, Belgaum. Appellate authority partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the rejection of the return but reduced additions to Rs. 1,40,010 to the declared turnover and also reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 5,000. 6. Petitioner feeling aggrieved, contested the matter and filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Tribunal after noticing the contentions of the parties rejected the appeal by observing that contentions raised by the petitioner could not be accepted because of the statement made by the petitioner before the intelligence authority admitting the purchase of the goods under the lorry receipts; that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence to show that the said statement was given by it under any compulsion or coercion. In the absence of any such allegation, it was presumed that the petitioner had given the admission statement voluntarily. On the finding of the authorities below that there was suppression in the purchase of goods which stood proved by the lorry receipts and the admission made by the petitioner, the appeal was rejected. 8. Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that they were actually not the buyers of the goods that were subject-matter of 7 lorry receipts. 8. Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the authorities below have failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that they were actually not the buyers of the goods that were subject-matter of 7 lorry receipts. It was pleaded that in the absence of details in the lorry receipts and having not been made available to the petitioner, petitioner could not defend A the petition in a reasonable and fair manner. The order of levy of Rs. 7,000 as tax and compounding fee of Rs. 10,000 having passed in violation of principles of natural justice was a nullity and therefore the same was not binding on it. The presumption raised by the authorities that there is non-accounting of purchase turnover of Rs. 70,000 on the basis of a non est order could not be sustained. 9. We do not find substance in any of the submissions raised by the counsel for the petitioner. At the outset, it may be made clear that we are not hearing a petition against the order passed by the C. T. O. (Intelligence), N. Z., Belgaum dated October 11, 1990. That order had become final between the parties and that too on the basis of an admission made in writing by the petitioner. The same was compounded at the instance of the assessee and having compounded the same, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same. The order of C. T. O. (Intelligence) dated October 11, 1990 was in the record of the assessee's file. Taking note of this fact and other attending facts, the assessing authority issued proposition notice and after affording due opportunity to the petitioner, concluded that there was suppression of purchase turnover. The authorities below were justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the petitioner and resorting to best judgment assessment in view of the admission made by the petitioner regarding suppression of sales and compounding the offence committed by it. The finding recorded is of fact. Under section 23(1) revision to this Court lies on a question of law only. The findings of the Tribunal being of facts, does not call for any interference. 10. Contention of Mr. Gandhi that the order passed by the C. T. O. (Intelligence) was non est cannot be accepted. The finding recorded is of fact. Under section 23(1) revision to this Court lies on a question of law only. The findings of the Tribunal being of facts, does not call for any interference. 10. Contention of Mr. Gandhi that the order passed by the C. T. O. (Intelligence) was non est cannot be accepted. At the most, this order was voidable which could be avoided by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings. It was not non est or a void order which could be ignored by the petitioner. Otherwise also, once the petitioner sought compounding of the offence and willingly paid the compounding fee, it disabled itself from raising objection to that. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of S. V. Bagi v. State of Karnataka reported in [1992] 87 STC 138; ILR 1992 Kar 1123, held that a person having agreed to the composition of the offence under section 31 of the Act is not entitled to challenge the said proceedings by filing appeal under section 20 of the Act. It was observed : "The fact that he has made the payment would indicate beyond any doubt that he was a willing party to the compounding and he cannot object thereto. It is, therefore, difficult to see how an appeal can be filed against an order of compounding." 11. Mr. Gandhi relied upon [1988] 68 STC 241 [K. M. Puttaswamy (deed. by legal representative) v. Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Mysore Circle] (in the High Court of Karnataka), [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer (in the Kerala High Court), [1992] 87 STC 5 13 (Hotel Blue Nile v. State of Tamil Nadu) (in the Madras High Court). In our view, none of these judgments are relevant to the point in issue. In K. M. Puttaswamy's case [1988] 68 STC 241 (Kar) assessee had challenged the levy of tax and the compounding fee by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) itself. This Court struck down the levy of tax and the compounding fee by holding that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner to question the discrepancies. Similarly, in [19921 87 STC 513 (Mad.) (Hotel Blue Nile v. State of Tamil Nadu) the assessee had challenged the action of the inspecting authority on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. Similarly, in [19921 87 STC 513 (Mad.) (Hotel Blue Nile v. State of Tamil Nadu) the assessee had challenged the action of the inspecting authority on the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. In both these cases, the honourable Judges came to the conclusion that the orders had been passed by the inspecting team without affording due and appropriate opportunity to the assessees in violation of principles of natwal justice thus vitiating their orders. 12. As observed earlier, in the present case, the action of the inspecting team is not under challenge before us. The order passed by the inspecting team based on the admission of the petitioner himself has been used as a piece of evidence to conclude that there was a suppression in the purchase turnover for the purpose of rejecting the books of accounts. We are not examining the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the inspecting team. These two cases are therefore, not in any way applicable to the point in issue before us. Similarly, the case reported in [1972] 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam) has no relevance for the point in issue. In that case, the order of the Income-tax Officer was held to be a nullity because the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to object to the procedure adopted by the I. T. O. In the present case, petitioner was given full opportunity by the assessing authority by issuing proposition notices and after affording due opportunity, the order of assessment was passed. 13. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this revision petition. The petition is dismissed but without order as to costs. Petition dismissed.