Statutory interest levy and factual delay disputes belong in revision, not writ jurisdiction, where payment records need reconciliation.

Statutory interest on delayed additional sales tax liability was treated as arising on the date the tax became due, and the levy was supported by month-wise computation of delay and interest. Because the assessee's challenge depended on reconciliation of payment particulars and factual verification of delay, the proper forum was the revisional authority, not the writ court. With an adequate statutory revisional remedy available, the High Court declined interference and left the assessee to pursue revision. The writ petitions challenging the levy were therefore not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging levy of statutory interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 were maintainable when the impugned orders were revisable and the dispute turned on factual reconciliation of payments and delay.

Analysis: The obligation to pay additional sales tax arose when it became due, and the record showed month-wise computation of delay and interest. The Court held that even if the assessee disputed the factual basis of the levy, the proper course was to place the materials before the revisional authority, which was the more appropriate forum to reconcile the payment particulars and determine whether there was any delay. In view of the availability of the statutory revisional remedy, the writ court would not interfere with the impugned orders.

Conclusion: The challenge to the levy was rejected and the writ petitions were not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment-related order is revisable and the controversy depends on factual verification of payment and delay, the writ court should decline interference and leave the assessee to the statutory revisional remedy.

---