Jurisdiction and consent in compounding proceedings led to the impugned order being set aside.

An order compounding an offence was challenged on two grounds: lack of jurisdiction because the authority was not the assessing officer, and absence of the petitioner's consent to compounding. Those objections were not disputed by the respondents. The Court accepted the jurisdictional and consent-based objections and, without examining the merits, held that the impugned order could not stand. The order was accordingly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order compounding the offence was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and absence of consent.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that the authority concerned was not the assessing officer and therefore had no jurisdiction to compound the offence, and that compounding could not be ordered unless the petitioner agreed to it. These submissions were not refuted by the respondents. The Court accepted the contention and, without entering into the merits, held that the impugned order could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside.

---