Compounded levy option cannot be treated as withdrawn by filing returns in another form; formal withdrawal is required.

A dealer granted permission to pay tax under a compounded levy scheme retains that option so long as eligibility continues and the option is not clearly withdrawn. Filing monthly returns in a different form, even if mistaken, does not amount to a conscious relinquishment of the statutory right. Withdrawal must be clear, overt, and voluntary, and cannot be inferred from conduct that does not unmistakably show that intention. The retrospective provision therefore preserved the continued benefit of compounded assessment until formal withdrawal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's option to be assessed under the compounded levy provision could be treated as withdrawn merely because monthly returns were filed in another form, and whether the benefit of the continued option under the retrospective sub-section remained available.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permitted a dealer, once granted permission to pay tax at compounded rates, to continue under that arrangement so long as the dealer remained eligible and had not withdrawn the option. The filing of returns in a different form, whether by mistake or otherwise, did not amount to a conscious relinquishment of the statutory right. Withdrawal of such an option had to be clear, overt, and voluntary, and it could not be inferred from conduct that did not unmistakably evince such an intention. The continued benefit under the retrospective provision could not be defeated by a rule or by an implied waiver not supported by the statute.

Conclusion: The filing of monthly returns did not constitute withdrawal of the option, and if the assessee had the benefit of the compounded assessment provision in the earlier year, that benefit continued under the retrospective provision until formally withdrawn.

---