Automatic interest on delayed additional sales tax was upheld, and prior notice was not required for collection.

Interest on belated payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu sales tax scheme was treated as a statutory consequence of default and could be levied under the governing provisions, reinforced by the retrospective validating amendment. The levy did not require a separate show-cause notice or fresh adjudication, because interest followed automatically once the tax remained unpaid after the due date.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be levied on belated payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970; (ii) whether the levy required prior notice before collection of interest.

Issue (i): whether interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be levied on belated payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970.

Analysis: The liability to additional sales tax was treated as arising by operation of the statutory scheme and as incidental to the tax payable under the principal sales tax enactment. The Tribunal's Full Bench decision in E.I.D. Parry had already held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 and the Rules were sufficient to attract interest on default, and that the principle in India Carbon, which concerned the Central Sales Tax Act, did not govern the State enactment. The later retrospective amendment inserting the specific charging provision and validating earlier collections further supported the levy.

Conclusion: The levy of interest on delayed payment of additional sales tax was upheld and the challenge was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the levy required prior notice before collection of interest.

Analysis: Interest was held to be a statutory consequence of non-payment by the due date and not a fresh determination of liability requiring a separate show-cause process. Since the amount remained unpaid after the prescribed date, the levy followed automatically under the statutory framework.

Conclusion: Prior notice was not required before levying interest.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme, as reinforced by the retrospective validating amendment, sustained the impugned demand for interest on delayed payment of additional sales tax, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute and its validating amendment expressly make interest payable on unpaid additional tax, the levy of interest is automatic on default and does not depend on a separate notice or fresh adjudication.

---