Judgment Though the matter is listed for Admission, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present appeals relate to the assessment period March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007. 3. Briefly, the facts of this case are : That an inspection was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 31.01.2008. At the time of inspection, it was reported that the appellant had effected certain sales through credit cards which were not reflected in the regular books of accounts. The appellant admitted the tax liability on such sales and offence under Section 79 of The Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act’, for brevity) was compounded under the provisions of Section 82 of the KVAT Act. Thereafter, for the said three assessment periods, the assessing authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reassessed the appellant and enhanced the turnover reported by the appellant to the extent of the alleged suppressed turnover as per the inspection report. The order to that effect was passed by the assessing authority on 24.07.2009. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed three separate appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which were allowed vide order dated 10.12.2009 and the orders of reassessment passed for the said assessment periods were set aside. The respondent-Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, then initiated suo motu proceedings and issued notice under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act to the appellant on 18.11.2011. The appellant submitted its detailed reply on 31.01.2012. The respondent-Additional Commissioner thereafter vide his order dated 06.02.2012 concluded the revisional proceedings for the assessment period March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007 by setting aside the order dated 10.12.2009 and restored the order of the assessing authority dated 24.07.2009. Challenging the said order, these appeals have been filed. 4. We have heard Sri Arvind Kamath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is two fold: He firstly submitted that after the offences had been compounded under the provisions of Section 82 of the KVAT Act, there was no occasion for the assessing authority to reassess the appellant for the aforesaid assessment periods. 5. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is two fold: He firstly submitted that after the offences had been compounded under the provisions of Section 82 of the KVAT Act, there was no occasion for the assessing authority to reassess the appellant for the aforesaid assessment periods. It was secondly submitted that the revisional proceedings could not have been concluded by observing that the appellant did not have the right to appeal against the order of the assessing authority dated 24.07.2009, as according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the provisions of Section 82(3) of the KVAT Act, would not be attracted in the present case. 6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that even after the compounding proceedings had been concluded, the assessing authority had the right to reassess the appellant for the relevant assessment periods, as on the basis of the intelligence report regarding suppression of the turnover by the appellant, the assessing authority could always reassess the appellant. He has however, not been able to justify the order of the revisional authority, whereby the order of the assessing authority has been restored and the order of the appellate authority has been set aside without entering into the merits of the case, on the mere technicality that the provisions of Section 82(3) of the KVAT Act, would be attracted. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the assessing authority had the power to reassess the appellant after it was reported that there was suppression of turnover by the appellant during the assessment periods in question. 8. For deciding the question as to whether the provisions of Section 82(3)(c) of the KVAT Act would be attracted in the present case or not, we need to examine the relevant Section 82, which is reproduced below: 82. Compounding offences (1) Where any dealer has committed an offence under sub-section (1) of Section 77 or Section 79, the prescribed authority may, on admission by such dealer in writing and upon his option to compound at any time prior to the commencement of the court proceedings relating thereto, compound such offence and order the dealer to pay such sum of money as specified by the prescribed authority, which shall not exceed the amount of the fine prescribed for the offence, in addition to any tax and interest due. (2) Furnishing of a cheque or any other instrument towards payment of a sum by any such dealer shall be deemed to be an application for compounding the offence. (3) Where the prescribed authority compounds an offence under this Section, the order referred to in sub-section (1) (a) shall be in writing and specify the offence committed, the sum of money to be paid and the due date for the payment; and (b) shall be served on the dealer who committed the offence; and (c) shall be final and not subject to any appeal; and (d) may be enforced in the same manner as a decree of a court for the payment of the amount stated in the order. (4) When the prescribed authority compounds an offence under this Section, the dealer concerned shall not be liable to prosecution in respect of such offence or to any further penalty under this Section and such dealer shall not appeal against the said proceedings. 9. From a plain reading of the said Section, it would be clear that finality is to be given only to such proceedings which relate to compounding of offences. The reassessment proceedings, which may be for the same assessment periods, would be independent proceedings and could not be clubbed with the proceedings for compounding of offences. In the present case, the proceedings for compounding were concluded on the basis of the inspection carried out on 31.01.2008. The same had become final and could not be subjected to any appeal. Once the Department had thereafter initiated reassessment proceedings, the same being independent of the proceedings for compounding of offences, the appellant-assessee would always have a right to challenge such reassessment order on merits. 10. In such view of the matter, the conclusion of the revisional proceedings by holding that the appeal against reassessment order was not maintainable by virtue of Section 82(3)(c) of the KVAT Act, cannot be justified in law. We are of the clear opinion that the respondent-revisional authority ought to have decided the matter on merits and in accordance with law, after considering the reply of the appellant and giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals stand allowed. The order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the respondent-revisional authority i.e., Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, for the assessment period March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007 is set aside. 12. 11. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals stand allowed. The order dated 06.02.2012 passed by the respondent-revisional authority i.e., Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, for the assessment period March 2005, March 2006 and March 2007 is set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority for deciding the matter afresh, in accordance with law, after considering the reply filed by the appellant and giving the appellant adequate opportunity of hearing.