Judgment : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Both these S.T. Revisions are connected and petitioner in both is the State Government. The S.T. Revisions are filed under Section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent assessee is a bar attached Hotel at Sreekantapuram which, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, is located in the Panchayath area. For the year 2010-2011, the respondent assessee opted for payment of tax at compounded rate under Section 7(1) of the Act. Permission was granted by the assessing authority as per order dated 14.09.2010. There is no dispute that assessee had paid tax up to August 2010 at compounded rate. Thereafter, the assessee sought for withdrawal of permission to pay tax at compounded rate. The reason given was that the Excise Commissioner had cancelled its licence and resultantly, there was no purchase or sales during the period from September 2010 to December 2010. The Assessing Officer rejected the request of the assessee and demanded turnover tax for the months of September to December 2010 at compounded rate. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the order. The Tribunal however took the view that the assessee is not liable to pay tax at compounded rate in view of the fact that there was no purchase or sales during the months in question and granted relief. It is accordingly that the State, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, has filed these two revisions. 2. We heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the question is covered by the judgment in Falcon Rock Products Vs. Sales Tax Officer [ (2001) 121 STC 224 ] which decision has been distinguished by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that it is not applicable. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal. According to the respondent, since there was no purchase or sales during the months in question, as correctly found by the Tribunal, the assessee cannot be liable to pay tax at the compounded rate for those months. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to advert to the provisions under Section 7 as far as it is relevant for the purposes of the case, which reads as follows: "7. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to advert to the provisions under Section 7 as far as it is relevant for the purposes of the case, which reads as follows: "7. Payment of tax at compounded rates- Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of Section 5 any bar attached hotel, not being a star hotel of and above four star hotel, heritage hotel or club, may at its option, instead of paying turnover tax on foreign liquor in accordance with the said subsection, pay turnover tax on the turnover of foreign liquor calculated at the rates in clauses (a) or (b) of items (i) and (ii) respectively whichever is higher:- (1) in respect of a bar attached hotel of and below two star. (a) at one hundred and forty per cent of the purchase value of such liquor in the case of those situated within the area of a municipal corporation or a municipal council or a cantonment, and at one hundred and thirty five per cent of the purchase value of such liquor in the case of those situated in other place; or (b) at one hundred and fifteen per cent of the highest turnover tax payable by it as conceded in the return or accounts or the turnover tax paid for any of the previous cosecutive three years: and" 4. There is no dispute between the parties that the aforesaid provisions are the relevant provisions for the purposes of our consideration. A perusal of the said provision would show that the legislative intention is that if the compounding is allowed, the tax will be paid on the basis of the amount arrived at in Clause (a) or (b) whichever is higher. As far as Clause (a) is concerned, it is fixed with reference to the purchase turnover. Undoubtedly, Clause (a) applies in this case in the sense that there was purchase turnover for the months up to August 2010 and perhaps the tax was being collected on the said basis, provided it was higher than the sum arrived at on the basis of applying Clause (b). At any rate, we are not concerned with that controversy. Undoubtedly, Clause (a) applies in this case in the sense that there was purchase turnover for the months up to August 2010 and perhaps the tax was being collected on the said basis, provided it was higher than the sum arrived at on the basis of applying Clause (b). At any rate, we are not concerned with that controversy. But we are concerned with the contention of the respondent assessee that in view of the fact that there were no purchase or sales during the months in question and in view of the fact that Clause (a) is geared to arriving at the tax payable based on the purchase, the formula breaks down and we reach a situation where there is no tax payable as there was no purchase. We would think that acceptance of this argument will involve doing violence to the very scheme of the Section as embedded in the forgoing provisions which indicate that tax must be the one which is higher as between Clause (a) and b). That is to say, if the tax as arrived at in Clause (b) is higher than the tax which is payable under Clause (a), then once compounding is allowed, the assessee will have to pay the said sum. In this case, it may be true that on the basis of the cancellation of the licence by the Excise Commissioner there were no purchases or sales during the months in question. But that would not be the end of the enquiry. We would have to enquire as to what is the tax that he would have to pay if one took into consideration the provisions of Clause (b). As far as Clause (b) is concerned, it is based on percentage of the turnover as provided therein for the previous 3 years. The assessee does not have a case that he did not have any turnover and that the amount of tax could not be arrived at on the basis of the operation of Clause (b). As far as Clause (b) is concerned, it is based on percentage of the turnover as provided therein for the previous 3 years. The assessee does not have a case that he did not have any turnover and that the amount of tax could not be arrived at on the basis of the operation of Clause (b). Therefore even proceeding on the basis that the tax which should be arrived at on the basis of applying Clause (a) is nil, the amount of tax which should be arrived at on the basis of Clause (b) would have to be arrived at and since if that tax is by any account higher than the amount which is arrived at under Clause (a), the assessee would be liable to pay the said amount. In this regard, we must notice that it is not a case of a regular assessment under Section 5. This is a case where the assessee on his own volition opted for compounding. The assessee must be taken to have ventured to accept liability to pay tax at compounded rates, with all the perils and benefits which accompanied such a decision and having accepted the same, it is not open to the assessee to turn around and extricate himself from the liability which stares at him by virtue of the unambiguous provisions contained in Section 7 of the Act. The above revisions are to be allowed. The questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the assessee. The impugned orders will stand set aside. It is made clear that the assessments will be completed on the aforesaid basis during the months in question.