JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The main grievance involved in all these cases [though they pertain to different assessment years] is mainly with regard to the demand raised by the assessing authority to satisfy the balance tax payable under the compounding provision pursuant to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act pertaining to the relevant year enhancing the compounded rate of tax, which in turn has been sought to be applied and demanded with effect from the date on which the amendment has been brought into force. 2. The contention of the assessee is that, their application for compounding having been accepted, permitting them to satisfy the tax accordingly, there is a concluded contract and hence they are not liable to pay any more tax over and above the tax already remitted as per the unamended provision for the assessment year. The contention is that the enhanced rate of compounded rate of tax could be implemented only in respect of the next/succeeding assessment year. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue at length. 4. With regard to the issue involved in O.P. No. 1501 of 2003, the petitioner assessee submitted Ext. P1 application dated 09.04.2001 in Form 21 before the second respondent/assessing authority for permission to satisfy the tax at the compounded rate as provided under Section 7 of the KGST Act. The rate of tax under Section 7, till 22.07.2001 [depending upon the size of the stone crusher machine] was at varying levels; such as Rs.15,000, Rs.30,000 and Rs.60,000 respectively. As per the Kerala Finance Act 2001, which came into force from 23.07.2001, the above rates were enhanced and substituted as Rs.30,000, Rs.90,000 and Rs.1,80,000 respectively. An 'Explanation' was also added to the effect that the primary crusher shall also be reckoned for the purpose of computation of the quantum of compounded tax. 4. Ext. P1 application submitted by the petitioner assessee was accepted and Ext. P2 sanction was issued by the second respondent on 09.04.2001 i.e. prior to the commencement of the amended Act. Subsequently, Ext. P4 notice dated 09.01.2003 was issued referring to the amendment brought about w.e.f. 23.07.2001 as to the enhancement of the rate of compounded tax w.e.f 23.07.2001 and specifying the balance amount; however granting an opportunity to file objection, if any. Subsequently, Ext. P4 notice dated 09.01.2003 was issued referring to the amendment brought about w.e.f. 23.07.2001 as to the enhancement of the rate of compounded tax w.e.f 23.07.2001 and specifying the balance amount; however granting an opportunity to file objection, if any. This made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging Ext. P4 notice raising the following prayers: (i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act, 2001 which makes amendment in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act is not applicable for the assessment year 2001-02. (ii) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring levy of compounded tax on "primary machine" by inserting "Explanation" to Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act by the amendment made by the Kerala Finance Act, 2001 is ambiguous and unsustainable. (iii) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P4 notice as it is issued without jurisdiction, illegal and unsustainable. (iv) to issue such other orders or directions as this Honourable Court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case. And (v) to grant the prayer in the civil miscellaneous petition filed along with the Original Petition. 6. During the pendency of the proceedings, on seeking stay of Ext. P4 by filing C.M.P. No. 2701 of 2003, an interim order was passed by this Court holding that the revised rate for compounded tax shall be made applicable only from 23.07.2001 for the year 2001 – 2002. It is brought to the notice of this Court from the contents of the I.A. No. 13359 of 2011 [filed by the petitioner seeking to accept the additional documents produced along with the said I.A.] that objections were filed to Ext. P4 notice as directed by this Court and that the second respondent considered the objections and they were negated passing orders and issuing a demand notice to satisfy the balance compounded tax Rs.2,82,478/-, plus interest of Rs.3,02,251/-. It is stated that the amounts due were recovered, invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. Copies of the said proceedings, receipt of payment of tax, interest and service charges have been produced as Exts. P5 to P8 respectively. Ext. It is stated that the amounts due were recovered, invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act. Copies of the said proceedings, receipt of payment of tax, interest and service charges have been produced as Exts. P5 to P8 respectively. Ext. P5 notice and the Revenue Recovery Proceedings have not been subjected to challenge and the Original Petition has not been amended in any manner. As such, the challenge raised against Ext. P4 notice has become a stale cause of action. Incidentally, it is also to be noted that O.P. 1501 of 2003 was earlier listed before this Court along with W.P.(C) No. 1586, 9126 and 11694 of 2011 and also with Writ Appeals 1877, 1862, 1861, 1865, 1864, 1876 and 1883 of 2007. The above connected matters were separately considered by this Court and interference has been declined, dismissing the appeals/writ petitions as per separate verdict rendered by this Court in W.A. No. 1861 of 2007 and connected cases. This Original Petition has necessarily to fail in the light of the finding rendered by this Court in the above connected cases as well. 7. WP(C) Nos. 15297 & 16662 of 2010 and 12002 of 2011 project almost similar grievance in relation to the assessment year 2009 – 2010. All the petitioners therein are running stone crusher units and they sought for permission to satisfy tax at the compounded rate in terms of Section 8(b) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The options submitted in this regard were accepted by the assessing authority, who passed orders demanding the yearly tax as Rs.1,50,000/-, fixing the monthly installments accordingly. The contention of the petitioners is that, at the time of exercising the option, the compounded rate of tax payable by them as per the then existing provision was only Rs. 25,000/-p.a.; which however came to be enhanced by virtue of the Kerala Finance Act 2009 [which received the assent of the Governor on 27.07.2009 and was published in the gazette dated 28.07.2009 causing the resultant changes]. Contending that the said amended provision cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners for the year 2009-10; the orders passed by the assessing authority demanding the higher tax as per the amended provision is sought to be interdicted. 8. The respondent Government has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 15297 of 2010. Contending that the said amended provision cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners for the year 2009-10; the orders passed by the assessing authority demanding the higher tax as per the amended provision is sought to be interdicted. 8. The respondent Government has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 15297 of 2010. It is pointed out that having submitted the application for satisfying the tax at compounded rate for the year 2009-10, the petitioner is not entitled to withdraw the compounding application. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had paid Rs.1,60,000/- towards the compounded tax for the assessment year 2007-2008 and that the compounded tax was virtually reduced for the next year 2008-2009, to Rs. 1,50,000/-, as per the Finance Act 2009. The case law and the relevant provisions of the Statute have been illustrated in paragraphs 9 and 10 which are extracted below for convenience of reference : "9. It is further humbly submitted that this Honourable Court already considered the issue regarding the entitlement of the assessee to withdraw the opiton for compounding under the case Raju Jacob Vs. Sales Tax Officer reported in 2006 (1) KLT 788 and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Tax) Vs. Koothattukulam Liquors reported in (2004) 12 KTR 196. In both these cases, the Honourable Division Bench of this Honourable Court held that an assessee is not entitled to retract or withdraw compounding application once filed and accepted by the deparment. It is also to be noted that in the case Prakash Jewellery and another Vs. State of Kerala and Alukkas Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2004) 12 KTR 543, this Honourable Court held that an assessee is not entitled to withdraw the compounding application and the compounded rate applicable is the rate as modified by the Finance Act. In page 547 of the said decision reported, it is clearly held as follows : 'However, amendment was made to Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act by Kerala Finance Act 2002 applicable for the year 2002-03 by enhancing the compounding fee payable under the main Section 7 (1) (a) from 150% to 200 % of the tax paid for the preceding year, whether the tax paid for the preceding year was at the compounded rate or not. Second proviso to Section 7 (1) (a) which existed until 2001-02 was deleted by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from 2002-03. Therefore the petitioner who were paying tax at the compounded rate including for the year 2001-02 have to pay tax for 2002-03 at 200% of the compounded tax paid in the previous year (2001- 2002). It is this amendment by Finance Act 2002 that is under challenge in this Ops. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the budget for the financial year 2002 was presented, and when the Finance Bill 2002 was first published, the only proposal was to increase the compounding rate of tax from 150% to 200% by amending the Section 7(1) (a) which applied for those who start paying tax at compounded rate for first time in 2002-03 and there was no proposal in the original Finance Bill to delete the second proviso to Section 7 (1) (a) which provided for continued payment of tax at the compounded rate by those who were following at the rate of 120% of the previous year's tax. However, the proposal in the Finance Bill 2002 to delete the second proviso to Section 7 (1) (a) was introduced by Erratum to the Finance Bill 2002 published in the Kerala Gazettee on 30.03.2002. Since the Finance Bill 20002 with the Erattum was passed, notified and the Act got amended, the petitioners are liable to pay tax at compounded rate for 2002-03, 200% of the compounded tax paid for the previous year (2001-02). By virtue of the amendment every dealer opting to pay tax at compounded rate for 2002-03 has to pay 200% of the previous year's tax irrespective of whether the previous year's tax was paid at compounded rate or based on tax conceded in the return' 10. It is also to be noted that para 3 of the said decision in page 549 is mentioned as follows : '3. It is also to be noted that para 3 of the said decision in page 549 is mentioned as follows : '3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the deletion of the second proviso to Section 7 (1) (a) by Kerala Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 01.04.2002 should not be applied to them because prior to the passing of the Finance Act, 2002 on 29.07.2002, they had made applications for compouding in Form No.21 and the assessing officer had granted approval for payment of tax at compounded rate and issued proceedings in Form No. 21A and demand notice in From No.22. However, after passing of the Finance Act, 2002, it was proposed to revise demand from 120 percent of the previous year's tax based on the main Section 7(1)(a) of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2002. This composite argument of the petitioners involves two issues to be decided. The first question is whether the Finance Act passed on 29.07.2002 applies from the beginning of the financial year, 2002-03, that is from 1.4.2002 onwards and the second question is whether the amendment carried out through the Erratum to the Bill is correct or not and if so, whether the amendment through Erattum to the Bill also is effective from 1.4.2002. It is conceded that a declaration was issued under the provisions of the Kerala Provisional Collection of Revenues Act, 1985 along with the Finance Bill, 2002 and by virtue of the said declaration, the provisions of the Finance Bill take effect from the beginning of the financial year, no matter the Act was passed only later." 9. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14032 of 2010, the assessee who sought to satisfy the tax under the compounded rate under Section 8(b) of the KVAT Act in respect of the year’s 2007-'08 and 2008 – 09. It is stated that the petitioner had decided not to opt for compounding in the year 2009-10, for their own reasons. However, on finding that the Kerala Finance Bill 2009, had brought down the rates of tax, option was submitted for satisfaction of tax at the compounded rate. It is stated that when the Bill became the Act, the State effected substantial changes, casting higher liability. However, on finding that the Kerala Finance Bill 2009, had brought down the rates of tax, option was submitted for satisfaction of tax at the compounded rate. It is stated that when the Bill became the Act, the State effected substantial changes, casting higher liability. Permission was issued by the assessing authority to satisfy compounded tax under Section 8(b) fixing the same as Rs.3,03,000/- including cess, also prescribing the monthly rate as borne by Ext. P6. The petitioner challenged the amendment in the Finance Act 2009, for having deviated from the earlier proposal, by filing W.P.(C) No. 33248 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as per Ext. P8 common judgment dated 03.03.2010, also placing reliance on the verdict passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.02.2010 in W. A. No. 284 of 2010. Since there was an observation in Ext. P8 that, the petitioner was free to pursue the 'alternate prayer', for permission to satisfy tax 'on turn over basis' by approaching the authorities concerned, a request was made in this regard, which however came to be turned down as per Ext. P11, holding that, having chosen to exercise the option to satisfy tax on compounded rate, it was not possible to turn back; which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, raising similar contentions, another dealer had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 32866 of 2009, wherein interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed as per Judgment 05.02.2010. As per the said decision, it was held by the learned single Judge that the rate fixed and permitted to be cleared through an order of compounding could be enhanced during the midway of the financial year, limiting the enhanced liability to be satisfied from the date of commencement of the amended provision. The above verdict was subjected to challenge by filing W.A. No. 284 of 2010. The question considered was the correctness of the verdict passed by the learned single Judge in upholding the rectification of demand of tax at the compounded rate for the year 2009 – 10. The verdict passed by the learned single Judge was upheld and appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 19.02.2010. 11. A learned single Judge of this Court has already held in Prakash Jewellery and another Vs. The verdict passed by the learned single Judge was upheld and appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 19.02.2010. 11. A learned single Judge of this Court has already held in Prakash Jewellery and another Vs. State of Kerala and Alukkas Jewellery Vs. State of Kerala and another, (2004 ) 12 KTR 543 (Ker.) that, in respect of payment of tax at compounded rate, rate applicable is the rate as modified by the Finance Act. It was made clear that the assessing authority, accepting the application for compounding and passing orders, can very well revise the proceedings after passing the Finance Act, to give effect to the amended rate of tax by invoking Section 43 of the KGST Act for rectification of the mistake. It has also been held therein that the assessee, having opted to satisfy tax at the compounded rate, after acceptance of the offer, cannot back out from the offer. The said verdict stands affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Raju Jacob Vs. S.T.O., 2006 (1) KLT 788 . We concur with the view taken in the said case. 12. In Suma Devi Vs. State of Kerala, 2005 (2) KLT 870, the constitutional validity of the amendment effected to Section 7(1) (b) of the KGST Act 1963, by Section 1 and Section 6 (c) of the Kerala Finance Act 2001, was under challenge. Grievance was against the introduction of Section 7 (1) (c) 'Explanation', reckoning the Primary Crushers also for the purpose of computation/quantifying the compounded tax. After a threadbare analysis of all the relevant aspects, a Division Bench of this Court held that the provision was constitutionally valid and that the primary crusher as well as secondary crusher also would fall within the expression of the mechanized unit. In Mycon Construction Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2002) 127 STC 105 the question considered was whether Section 17 (6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957, as amended by Act 5 of 1996, was unconstitutional or not; or whether the amendment brought in clause 6(i) of Section 17 by Act No. 7 of 1997 was unconstitutional. The Apex Court held that the provisions were valid and retrospective amendment was not violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. 13. The Apex Court held that the provisions were valid and retrospective amendment was not violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place some reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bhima Jewellery Vs. Assistant Commissioner [Assessment] Kerala and another, (2014) 71 VST 110 (SC)] in support of the contention as to the alleged inapplicability of the amended provision in the case of an assessee who had already opted to satisfy tax on compounded rate. It was a case originated from this Court. As per the verdict passed by this Court [Bhima Jewellery Vs. Assistant Commissioner [Assessment] Kerala and another, (2004) 137 STC 377 (Ker.)], Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the verdict passed by the learned single Judge that the assessing authority was justified in imposing additional tax under Section 5D of the KGST Act. The relevant portion of the observations made by the Apex Court in this regard is in the following terms: "Section 5D, which we have extracted earlier provides that additional tax can be levied and collected by the Revenue from a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Sections 5 and 5A of the KGST Act at a partiular rate. In the instant case, the dealer is not being taxed under Section 5 of Section 5A of the KGST Act but is paying tax at the compounded rate as envisaged in section 7 of the KGST Act and therefore will not be liable to pay additional tax under the amended provision of the KGST Act. The aforesaid proposition is in agreement with several decision of this court, where the court has reached the conclusion that the option of composition of tax is like a bilateral agreement between the parties with an object to dispense with the rigours of regular assessment. The dealer is given the choice to opt for compounded payment of tax and once the option is exercised and the same is accepted by the concerned authority, it is no longer open to the dealer to request for a regular assessment as envisaged under Section 5 or 5A of the KGST Act. The dealer is given the choice to opt for compounded payment of tax and once the option is exercised and the same is accepted by the concerned authority, it is no longer open to the dealer to request for a regular assessment as envisaged under Section 5 or 5A of the KGST Act. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that when a dealer is assessed under compounding scheme, one is also being assessed under the regular procedure of assessment, namely, Section 5 or 5A of the KGST Act to have been made liable to pay additional tax as per Section 5D of the KGST Act." It was accordingly, that the verdict passed by the Division Bench was reversed. The crux of the said verdict passed by the Apex Court is only to the effect that levy of additional sales tax on a dealer paying tax under the regular assessment is not applicable to the dealer opting to pay tax under compounded tax, in lieu of tax under the regular assessment. The said decision does not come to the rescue of the assessee in the instant cases. By virtue of the case law discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the rejection of the permission sought for is not liable to be interdicted. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that these matters [except S.T. Rev. No. 67 of 2006] are devoid of any merit. They fail and are dismissed accordingly. 14. With regard to S.T. Rev. 67 of 2006, the respondent assesee who is running a stone crusher unit had opted for satisfying tax at the compounded rate and on commencement of the year 2001 - 02. By virtue of the size of the machine, the liability to pay compounded tax was only to an extent of Rs.30,000/- p.a.. But by virtue of the Finance Act 2001 [which was brought into force on 23.07.2001], the compounded rate of tax payable in respect of such machine came to be enhanced to Rs.90,000/- p.m.. The assessing authority, taking note of the statutory change as to the enhancement of compounded rate, passed Annexure A1 assessment order, assessing the proportionate enhanced compounded tax for the period from 23.07.2001. The assessing authority, taking note of the statutory change as to the enhancement of compounded rate, passed Annexure A1 assessment order, assessing the proportionate enhanced compounded tax for the period from 23.07.2001. This was set aside by the appellate authority, as per Annexure B order, which came to be confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal, vide Annexure C. This made the State/Revenue to take up the matter before this Court raising questions of law in terms of Section 41 of KGST Act; particularly as to whether first appellate authority/Tribunal is justified in annulling the levy of compounded tax at the statutorily enhanced rate. By virtue of the discussions made above, this Court holds that the first appellate authority and the Tribunal have gone wrong in arriving at the finding in favour of the assesee. We set aside the same and answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue. The Revision Petition stands allowed. No cost.