Judges interpret statutes but their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.

In the above writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Special Tribunal dated 8.7.1997 whereby the prayer of the writ petitioner to quash the demand dated 2.11.1995 under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is a registered dealer in gold and silverwares and for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981 -82 a revised assessment order under Section 16 of the TNGST Act was passed on 17.3.1988. The petitioner carried the matter on appeal before the first appellate authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who by his order dated 8.3.1990 deleted the assessment made on the purchase turnover of old jewellery and old silverwares and also deleted the addition made on the purchase as well as sales turnover. The penalty imposed was also reduced from 150% to 50%. On further appeal, the Tribunal sustained the turnover as found by the first appellate authority, however deleted the entire penalty by its order dated 1.8.1991. Thereupon, the third respondent, assessing authority issued a fresh demand for payment of tax after giving effect to the order of the appellate authority on 20.3.1995, which was served on the assessee on 22.3.1995.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the demand, the petitioner was having 30 days time from the date of demand for payment of tax and he paid certain portion of the demand even prior to the service of demand dated 20.3.1995 and discharged the balance amount on 11.10.1995. However, the third respondent assessing authority called upon the petitioner to pay interest for the belated payment of the tax under Section 24(3) of the Act by his demand dated 2.11.1995. The correctness of the said demand was put in issue by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16361 of 1995 with a prayer to quash the same. On constitution of the Special Tribunal the said writ petition was transferred and taken on file in T.P.No. 2642 of 1997. Before the Special Tribunal, the petitioner challenged the correctness of the order of demand on the grounds that the provision of Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act are not attracted to the facts of the case, since the arrears of tax has been paid within 30 days from the date of demand made on 20.3.1995, that the liability to pay the tax arises only after issue of demand after giving effect to the appellate authority's order under Rule 32(2) of the TNGST Rules that on issuance of such notice, the amounts were paid and as such there has been no default and therefore, no liability of payment of interest under Section 24(3) arises and that the demand dated 20.3.1995 was belatedly issued by the authorities. All the three contentions were negatived by the Special Tribunal. The correctness of the said order is now put in issue in the present writ petition.

4. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act interest is leviable only in a case when the tax assessed or payable as per the return is defaulted. In the present case, the petitioner filed a return and also paid the tax as per the return. The order by way of revision under Section 16 passed by the third respondent was modified by the appellate authority from time to time. Rule 32(2) contemplates that the order shall be given effect to by the assessing authority within three months from the date of communication of order. The assessing officer shall refund the amount, if the dealer had paid the tax in excess after adjusting the arrears, if any and issue a refund voucher in form 'C'. The amount of the tax is found to be due from the dealer, then the assessing officer shall raise a demand in Form B7 and the dealer shall pay the same as demanded in the manner specified in the notice. If the amount as demanded is not paid then only Section 24(3) operates and interest is payable.

5. In this case, no specific dates for the payment of tax has been given but very casually stated that substantial po