Compounding and closure of proceedings do not make an assessee a person aggrieved or entitled to appeal.

An order merely dropping proceedings after compounding of an offence and acceptance of the composition fee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act did not create an adverse adjudication against the assessee. The assessee therefore was not a person aggrieved and could not maintain an appeal against the closure order. The broader question whether an order fixing the compounding fee is independently appealable was left unanswered because it was not necessary to decide the case. The revision consequently failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order dropping proceedings after compounding of the offence and acceptance of the compounding fee was appealable under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether the assessee was a person aggrieved.

Analysis: The assessee had been proceeded against for irregularities treated as an offence under section 26 punishable under section 29 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice offering an opportunity to compound, accepted the offer, received the compounding fee, and consequently dropped the proceedings. In that situation, the order did not inflict an adverse adjudication on the assessee but merely recorded the closure of proceedings on compounding. On that footing, the assessee could not claim to be a person aggrieved, and the question whether an order fixing the compounding fee was in the abstract appealable need not be decided.

Conclusion: The order dropping the proceedings was not appealable at the instance of the assessee, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal does not lie at the instance of a person who is not aggrieved by an order merely dropping proceedings after compounding of the offence and acceptance of the composition amount.

---