The due date for payment of tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is 20th of the succeeding month, irrespective of the date of filing of the return. The liability to pay interest under section 24(3) of the Act arises the moment the dealer fails to pay the full amount of tax in respect of the actual turnover for a particular month on the due date.

SOMASUNDARAM, J.

The appellant is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant is a rule 18 assessee paying tax on monthly returns on the actual turnover reported. According to the appellant, while submitting the monthly return for the month of December, 1991, relatable to the assessment year 1991-92, its accountant had inadvertently reported the turnover of October, 1991, instead of reporting the turnover of December, 1991 and on the turnover so reported, it had paid the tax due by way of cheque, along with such a return. Subsequently, while filing the return for the month of January, 1992, it realised the mistake committed and accordingly filed a revised return for the actual turnover of December, 1991, on February 19, 1992 and paid the difference in tax, amounting to Rs. 20, 15, 601. Thereafter, it received a notice in form 29 dated March 17, 1992, from the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle I, Greams Road, Madras-6 (third respondent) levying interest of Rs. 40, 312 under section 24(3) of the Act, calculated at the rate of two per cent per month on the tax due, that is to say on Rs. 20, 15, 601. Aggrieved by the demand so raised, a revision had been filed under section 33 before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (North), Ajith Buildings, III Floor, Madras-6 (second respondent), who dismissed the same in his proceedings in R.P. No. 203/92 dated August 28, 1992. A further revision was filed under section 35 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-IV, Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 (first respondent), who in turn dismissed the same in his proceedings in D.Dis. No. JJI/116743/92 dated April 6, 1993. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 16066 of 1993 to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated April 6, 1993, confirming the orders of the second respondent in R.P. No. 203/92, dated August 28, 1992 - and that of the third respondent dated March 17, 1992. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition, by order dated November 9, 1993, confirmed the orders challenged in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated November 9, 1993, in Writ Petition No. 16066 of 1993.

2. Before us, Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that from sections 13(2) and 24(3) of the Act read with rules 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), it is clear that in the case of self-assessment, if the return is submitted without payment of tax then such amount shall become due on the date of receipt of the return or on the last due date, whichever is later, that since the appellant in the present case paid the tax as per the returns on the date of filing the original return on January 20, 1992 and on the date of filing the revised return on February 19, 1992, there is no tax amount remaining unpaid on the date of filing of such returns and that in such circumstances, the department has no power to charge interest under section24(3) of the Act and therefore, the orders of the departmental authorities challenged in the writ petition and the order of the learned single Judge are illegal. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that rule 18(3) of the Rules providing for pre-emptory recovery can be applied only to tax due as per returns and cannot be invoked where any part of the turnover is not declared in the return, whereupon the only course open to the Revenue is to make assessment under section 13(1) read with rule 18(4) of the Rules. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the appellant had declared in their return for December, 1991, a turnover of Rs. 2, 81, 58, 579 and had paid the tax amount of Rs. 44, 62, 791 on the said turnove