https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158883 Where a dealer opted for the quarterly-return mechanism under the second proviso to rule 41, interest under section 8(1) could not be levied mechanically on the basis of the prescribed monthly average deposit. The expression "tax admittedly payable" was confined to tax payable on the turnover disclosed in the dealer's books or admitted in proceedings, so interest required a proved shortfall against that actual liability for the relevant period. As no such determination or finding of short deposit was made, the interest demand was unsustainable and the levy was set aside. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2013 18:49:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158883 Where a dealer opted for the quarterly-return mechanism under the second proviso to rule 41, interest under section 8(1) could not be levied mechanically on the basis of the prescribed monthly average deposit. The expression "tax admittedly payable" was confined to tax payable on the turnover disclosed in the dealer's books or admitted in proceedings, so interest required a proved shortfall against that actual liability for the relevant period. As no such determination or finding of short deposit was made, the interest demand was unsustainable and the levy was set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158883