Self-assessment and concessional tax claims can still attract interest when statutory declaration forms are not produced.

The Kerala General Sales Tax Act conditions the concessional rate under section 5(3) on production of the prescribed declaration form from the purchasing industrial unit. Where a dealer files returns on a self-assessment basis, claims the concession without furnishing the required declarations, and pays tax only at the reduced rate, the differential tax is treated as tax due under the Act. Section 23(3) therefore applies to unpaid tax or other amount due within the prescribed time, not only to tax quantified in a later assessment. The distinction drawn in Maruti Wire Industries turns on the absence of return and self-assessment in that case, unlike the present factual setting.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest under section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is leviable where the dealer filed returns on self-assessment basis, claimed concessional rate of tax, but failed to produce the statutory declaration forms for the concessional turnover.

Analysis: The concessional rate under section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was conditional upon production of the prescribed declaration form from the purchasing industrial unit. The dealer disclosed the turnover in the returns and paid tax only at the concessional rate, though it was aware that the benefit could be claimed only if the declarations were produced. On that basis, the unpaid differential tax was treated as tax due under the Act. The provision in section 23(3) applies not only to failure to pay tax assessed after demand, but also to tax or other amount due under the Act not paid within the prescribed time. The expression "tax due" was understood as the amount arising from the return and self-assessment, while "tax assessed" referred to the quantified liability. The decision in Maruti Wire Industries was distinguished on facts because that case involved no return and no self-assessment, whereas here the assessee had filed returns and wrongly applied the concessional rate without satisfying the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: Interest under section 23(3) was rightly levied, and the assessee was not entitled to avoid interest on the differential tax by relying on the later assessment and demand notice.

---