These two revisions filed by the assessee, M/s. Sita Ram Jwala Prasad, under section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), arise out of interrelated facts and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The short question that falls for consideration in these revisions is as to whether the admitted tax for the purposes of section 9 of the Act includes interest also and further whether the appeals could be entertained when admittedly the admitted tax was deposited before the filing of the appeals but the interest was deposited afterwards.

These revisions relate to the assessment year 1972-73. In the first revision the period involved is from 1st April, 1972, to 5th November, 1972, and in the second revision from 6th November, 1972, to 31st March, 1973. The admitted tax for these periods was Rs. 24,396. 76 and Rs. 12,027. 79 and interest was Rs. 2,640 and Rs. 760 respectively. The assessee had deposited the admitted tax before the filing of the appeals against the assessment order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), while the aforesaid amounts of interest were deposited sometime after the filing of those appeals, but before the appeals were entertained for consideration. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), being of the view that the amounts of interest had not been deposited within the statutory period provided for the filing of an appeal, held that the appeals were barred by time and could not be entertained; hence he dismissed them in limine. Being aggrieved, the assessee took the matter in revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Gorakhpur. The learned revising authority, relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rama Biscuit Factory [1978 U. P. T. C. 438], held that the amount of tax having been deposited after the expiry of the period of limitation provided for filing the appeals, the appeals had to be treated as barred by time and the question of delay could be considered only if an application for condonation of delay had been given under section 9 (6) of the Act and, since no such application had been given, the appeals were barred by time. Further, according to the learned revising authority, in view of section 8 (1-C) of the Act, the interest payable is to be treated as part of the tax and since, in the instant case, the amounts of interest were deposited several months after the filing of the appeals, they were barred by time.

So far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute and they have been narrated above. The admitted tax was deposited before the filing of the two appeals, while the interest payable under section 8 (1-C) was deposited several months after the filing of the appeals. The main question that would arise for consideration is whether the interest payable under section 8 (1-C) of the Act is to be treated as part of the admitted tax and, secondly, as to what is the import of the expression "entertained" occurring in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 9. I may first deal with the latter question. Section 9 of the Act provides that any dealer objecting to any order made by the assessing authority, other than an order mentioned in section 10-A, may within 30 days of the date of service of the copy of the order, appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. The proviso to sub-section (1) is material and is set out below :

" Provided that no appeal against an assessment order under this Act shall be entertained unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of the payment of not less than –

(a) where return is filed, - the amount of the tax or fee due under this Act on the turnover of sales or purchases, as the case may be, admitted by the appellant in the return filed by him or at a later stage in proceedings before the assessing authority, whichever is greater; or

(b) where no return is filed, - the amount of tax or fee due under this Act on the tur