Interest demand under Section 220(2) runs from the expiry of the operative demand notice, not an earlier ineffective notice.

Administrative circulars are not binding on courts; statutory text governs interest liability. A charging provision creates interest liability where a demand notice requires payment and payment is not made within the notice period, so interest runs from the day after the expiry of the prescribed period in the operative demand notice. An earlier demand that was rendered ineffective by an appellate allowance and refund cannot anchor interest after that allowance; a subsequent demand to give effect to a later appellate outcome starts the one month period afresh. Result: interest was payable from 07.10.1998 until payment.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is payable with reference to the first notice of demand issued under Section 156 or with reference to a subsequent notice of demand issued after an intervening appellate order that set aside the earlier assessment and led to a fresh liability.

2. Whether a departmental circular purporting to treat a later notice as relating back to an earlier notice can govern the commencement of statutory interest under Section 220(2), or whether the question must be determined solely by statutory construction.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Commencement of interest under Section 220(2) (statutory framework and applicability to successive notices)

Legal framework: Section 156 empowers the Assessing Officer to serve a notice of demand specifying the sum payable "when any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act." Section 220(1) prescribes payment within thirty days of service of the notice of demand; Section 220(2) makes the assessee liable to pay simple interest at 1% per month or part thereof "from the day immediately following the end of the period mentioned in sub-section (1)" where the amount specified in any notice of demand under Section 156 is not paid within that period. The proviso to Section 220(2) contemplates adjustment of interest where amounts are reduced by specified orders.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on authoritative principles that statutory provisions control the charge of interest and that liability must be traced to the operative demand under Section 156. No earlier judicial rule was treated as overriding the plain statutory text in this context.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed the phrase "in consequence of any order passed under this Act" and the operation of Section 156 to mean that a notice of demand is effective only insofar as a liability subsists "in consequence of" the relevant order. Where an assessment and the concomitant demand are set aside by an appellate order, the earlier notice ceases to have operative effect because the underlying liability is annulled. A fresh liability arising from a subsequent appellate outcome gives rise to a fresh notice of demand under Section 156, and the temporal trigger for interest under Section 220(2) is the expiry of the period specified in that fresh notice. Applying those principles to the facts, the Court held that the first notice lost significance when the first appellate authority allowed the assessee's appeal and the revenue refunded the amount; therefore interest could not validly be computed from the expiry of the period of the first notice. The relevant commencement date for interest was the day following the expiry of thirty days from the subsequent notice of demand issued to give effect to the Appellate Tribunal's order.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Interest under Section 220(2) accrues with reference to the operative notice of demand under Section 156 that reflects an extant liability; where an earlier notice becomes ineffective by reason of an appellate order setting aside the liability, interest cannot be charged from the earlier notice but only from the period allowed by the subsequent notice issued in consequence of the later order. Obiter - Observations comparing interest treatment under other fiscal statutes (Central Excise, Customs, CGST, Service Tax) noting those regimes may provide for interest from the date tax/duty is payable, unlike the Income Tax regime under Section 220(2).

Conclusions: The Court concluded that interest was payable with effect from the day following the thirty-day period provided in the second notice of demand (i.e., from 07.10.1998 in the facts), and not from the expiry of the period of the first notice which had ceased to exist upon allowance of the first appeal and refund to the assessee. The revenue was permitted to compute interest accordingly.

Issue 2 - Legal effect of departmental circulars/board instructions on statutory interpretation and interest computation

Legal framework: Executive circulars and departmental instructions may bind subordinate authorities but do not displace the court's role in declaring the meaning of statutory provisions; where a circular conflicts with statutory language or judicial determination, the circular does not bind the court.

Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished/overruled): The Court invoked the principle in the authoritative precedent that circulars/clarifications issued by the executive are not binding on courts and represent the executive's understanding of statutory provisions; the Court applied that principle to hold that reliance upon a departmental circular cannot override the statutory text of Sections 156 and 220.

Interpretation and reasoning: The revenue relied upon a Board circular asserting that a later notice relates back to the first notice and that interest should be computed from the first notice. The Court observed that such an administrative instruction cannot determine the legal incidence of a charging provision where the statute's language yields a different consequence. The Court held that the matter must be examined by reference to the statute itself; therefore the circular could not justify charging interest from the first notice once that notice had been rendered ineffective by the appellate order.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Departmental circulars cannot alter or override the operation of statutory charging provisions; courts must construe the statute and are not bound by executive circulars. Obiter - The Court's general statement on the non-binding character of circulars as against the judiciary (citing the precedent) is a settled principle applied to the facts.

Conclusions: The Court rejected the revenue's contention based on the circular and reaffirmed that interest under Section 220(2) must be determined by reference to the operative notice issued under Section 156 and the statutory text; the circular could not compel computation of interest from the earlier, superseded notice.

Cross-reference and operational direction

14. The Court directed that the revenue was at liberty to compute interest from the date determined (i.e., from the day following the thirty-day period specified in the operative Section 156 notice) until the date of payment, consistent with the statutory rate and proviso to Section 220(2) permitting adjustment if amounts are later reduced.

---