Interest on tax demand runs from the original due date; later appellate modification does not replace the demand notice.

Interest on unpaid tax accrued from the date fixed in the original demand notice, because liability arose when the dealer failed to pay by that date; later appellate or revisional modification only affected any excess interest refundable, not the commencement of liability. Form No. 33 issued under rule 190 was only a notice of modified dues and did not supersede the original demand notice in Form No. 30, which remained operative for interest computation. Reliance on an earlier tribunal decision did not displace this statutory interpretation. The application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest on the modified tax demand was payable from the date specified in the original demand notice and not from the date of the appellate or revisional order; (ii) Whether the notice in form No. 33 issued under rule 190 superseded the original demand notice in form No. 30; (iii) Whether the earlier tribunal decision relied on by the respondents governed the dispute.

Issue (i): Whether interest on the modified tax demand was payable from the date specified in the original demand notice and not from the date of the appellate or revisional order.

Analysis: Section 32(1) fixed the dealer's liability to pay simple interest where tax assessed was not paid by the date specified in the demand notice. Section 32(3) dealt with refund of excess interest when tax was later modified in appeal or revision. The two provisions were held to be consistent, because the liability to interest arose from default in payment by the date fixed in the original notice, while later modification only affected the quantum refundable.

Conclusion: Interest was correctly computed from the expiry of the time mentioned in the original demand notice, and the challenge to that levy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice in form No. 33 issued under rule 190 superseded the original demand notice in form No. 30.

Analysis: Rule 190 was held to operate only as a notice of modified dues after reassessment, redetermination, appeal, review or revision, and not as a fresh demand replacing the original demand notice. Form No. 33 was treated as informational in nature and not as a substitute for the original demand notice issued for recovery of tax.

Conclusion: Form No. 33 did not supersede form No. 30, and the original demand notice remained operative for computation of interest.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier tribunal decision relied on by the respondents governed the dispute.

Analysis: The earlier decision was considered alongside the statutory scheme, but the present case was resolved on the interpretation of sections 32 and 37 and rules 181, 190 and 194. The application did not disclose any legal basis to displace that interpretation.

Conclusion: The respondents' reliance on the earlier tribunal decision did not alter the result, and the application remained without merit.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme made interest payable from the original due date in the demand notice, and later appellate modification did not wipe out the earlier default or replace the original notice; the application was therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tax remains unpaid by the date fixed in the original demand notice, interest accrues from that date, and a subsequent appellate or revisional modification of the assessment does not supersede the original demand notice or extinguish the liability for interest.

---