https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156152 Interest on delayed payment of tax and penalty under the Haryana, Punjab and Central sales tax regimes was upheld as a valid recovery mechanism and not arbitrary under Article 14, because defaulting dealers and the State were not similarly situated and the classification had a rational nexus with prompt revenue collection. Interest was also held payable during periods of stay and pendency of reference, since liability arises by operation of law and a stay suspends recovery only, not the underlying statutory obligation. The challenge based on absence or defect of notice failed because automatic interest did not require a separate show-cause notice, and no prejudice was shown in relation to the penalty notice. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2013 12:44:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156152 Interest on delayed payment of tax and penalty under the Haryana, Punjab and Central sales tax regimes was upheld as a valid recovery mechanism and not arbitrary under Article 14, because defaulting dealers and the State were not similarly situated and the classification had a rational nexus with prompt revenue collection. Interest was also held payable during periods of stay and pendency of reference, since liability arises by operation of law and a stay suspends recovery only, not the underlying statutory obligation. The challenge based on absence or defect of notice failed because automatic interest did not require a separate show-cause notice, and no prejudice was shown in relation to the penalty notice. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156152