Writ jurisdiction and tax interest: instalment payment under a court order prevented interest on the deferred demand.

Availability of a statutory revision did not bar writ relief where the impugned tax demand was said to contradict an earlier binding court direction, making revision an empty formality. On interest, the text states that when tax was permitted to be paid in instalments and the demand was kept in abeyance, and no default under that schedule was found, the amount could not be treated as belated for levy of interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The notices were therefore quashed as inconsistent with the earlier judicial order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of the alternative statutory remedy of revision. (ii) Whether interest could be demanded under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, when the tax liability had been permitted to be paid in instalments under an earlier court order keeping the demand in abeyance.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of the alternative statutory remedy of revision.

Analysis: The impugned demand was found to be contrary to the directions already issued by the Court. Since the revisional authority would have been bound by the earlier judicial order, relegating the petitioner to revision was treated as an empty formality. The writ petitions had also already been admitted, and the impugned action was characterised as a misinterpretation of the earlier order rather than a matter requiring fresh statutory scrutiny.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative statutory remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be demanded under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, when the tax liability had been permitted to be paid in instalments under an earlier court order keeping the demand in abeyance.

Analysis: The earlier order had directed the demand to be kept in abeyance while permitting payment in instalments, and there was no finding of default in compliance with that order. In that situation, the payment could not be treated as belated for the purpose of levy of interest. The Court held that the demand for interest proceeded on a misconstruction of the earlier order and was not warranted in law.

Conclusion: Interest under section 24(3) could not be validly demanded on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded in challenging the interest demand, and the impugned notices were quashed as being inconsistent with the earlier binding judicial direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a court permits payment of tax in instalments and keeps the demand in abeyance, the liability cannot thereafter be treated as belated so as to attract interest, unless there is a default under the court-directed schedule.

---