ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on business in stainless steel articles who is registered as a dealer under the APGST Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”) and he is on the rolls of the 1st respondent, namely the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Guntur. While so, the business premises of the petitioner was inspected by the 1st respondent along with his staff on 22-9-1988 and during the course of inspection one small size pocket note book and seven slips of papers which contain sales and purchases of stainless steel articles were recovered. A detailed stock inventory was also drawn. The inventory revealed that there is a deficit stock of 241 Kgs 965 grams of stainless steel articles. On
verification of transactions contained in the slips with reference to the account books, it was noticed that the dealer failed to record the purchases of stainless steel to an extent of Rs. 18,878/- and sales of stainless steel articles to an extent of Rs.23,660/-during the relevant assessment year 1988-89. The petitioner came forward to compound the offence. In that regard, he submitted a consent letter dated 23-9-1998 expressing his willingness to pay the compounding amount if any in lieu of prosecution. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to pay the compounding fee and after paying the compounding fee after a lapse of more than two years the writ petition was filed in this Court praying for the following relief:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the collection of tax of Rs.3,356/- and compounding fees of Rs.6,712/- on 23-9-1988 is illegal and without jurisdiction and direct the respondents to refund the same forthwith to the petitioner together with interest @ 18% p.a. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondents coercively obtained the so-called consent letter and it was not voluntary. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition wherein they have denied the allegations of the petitioner that consent of the petitioner was obtained coercively.
3. In the first instance, it should be noticed that this Court while reviewing the action of the respondents under Article 226 cannot go into the disputed questions of fact. Be that as it may, there is absolutely no material placed before us even to prima facie come to a conclusion that the consent letter was obtained by the respondent authorities by exercising undue influence or coercion and the consent letter was not a voluntary one.
4. In Kaki Butchi Raju Son v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 19 APSTJ 19, the question arose for consideration by this Court was whether the dealer having paid the compounding fees could contest the same in appeal or writ petition. The Division Bench on consideration of that question in the premise of the statute has opined that having offered to compound the offence and got the same accepted, it is not open to the dealer to challenge the order passed by the assessing authority. The other contention of the petitioner that in any event the alleged offence being under Section 31(c) of the Act, the maximum compounding fee that can be levied should have been restricted to Rs.3,000/- only under Section 32(i)(b) of the Act as held by this Court in Sreerama Trading Company v. Commercial Tax Officer (TNT) No.1 and others, is also now well founded. It should be noticed that in the instant case, the offence committed by the petitioner is not only with regard to the incorrect maintenance of accounts but also suppression of the turnover. Therefore, on facts the above judgment of this Court can be distinguished from the facts of this case.
5. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.