Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI J. These three tax case references are at the instance of the Revenue The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in compliance with the directions of this court given under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act and made in T. C. P. Nos. 142 to 144 of 1978, has drawn up a consolidated statement of the case relating to the assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The common question of law referred to this court for its opinion reads as follows. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act as they stood before the amendment should be the basis for the computation of penalty under section 18(1)(a) notwithstanding the fact that the default continued even after April 1, 1969 ?" * The Wealth-tax Officer levied penalties for the delay in filing the wealth-tax returns in the sums of Rs. 72, 400, Rs. 81, 600 and Rs. 1, 05, 900, respectively, for the assessment years in question under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act as was in force on and from April 1, 1969. The assessee (since deceased), aggrieved by the orders of the Wealthtax Officer, preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the levy of penalty must be at the rates prevailing on the date when the default occurred and not on the date when the Wealth-tax Officer passed the order. On that view, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter to the Wealthtax Officer to recompute the penalties with reference to the rates of penalty in force on the dates of default, namely, the dates on which the wealth-tax returns were due, but failed to be filed. Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue preferred appeals to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following a judgment of this court in CGT v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar 1975 (98) ITR 540, 1975 (4) CTR 51, 1975 CTR(Mad) 67, a case under section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, took the view that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that the rates of penalty in force on the dates of default alone are applicable and, therefore, there was no case for interference. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. It may be mentioned that section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act and section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act are analogousStill aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Revenue succeeded in having the cases referred to this court as mentioned above. Mr. N. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, placing reliance on the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT 1986 AIR(SC) 293, 1986 (1) CCC 908, 1987 (65) STC 416, 1985 (2) Scale 1267 , 1986 (1) SCC 445 , 1985 (S3) SCR 827, 1986 (1) UJ 192 , 1986 (2) TLR 241, 1986 (157) ITR 330, 1986 TaxLR 241, 1986 (24) Taxman 1, 1986 SCC(Tax) 220, 1986 (50) CTR(SC) 191, submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal following the decision of the court in CGT v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar 1975 (98) ITR 540, 1975 (4) CTR 51, 1975 CTR(Mad) 67 can no longer hold the field. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee is not in a position to dispute this statement. In Maya Rani Punj v. CIT 1986 AIR(SC) 293, 1986 (1) CCC 908, 1987 (65) STC 416, 1985 (2) Scale 1267 , 1986 (1) SCC 445 , 1985 (S3) SCR 827, 1986 (1) UJ 192 , 1986 (2) TLR 241, 1986 (157) ITR 330, 1986 TaxLR 241, 1986 (24) Taxman 1, 1986 SCC(Tax) 220, 1986 (50) CTR(SC) 191 , the Supreme Court, overruling its earlier decision in CWT v. Suresh Seth 1981 AIR(SC) 1106, 1981 (129) ITR 328, 1981 (1) Scale 729 , 1981 (2) SCC 790 , 1981 (3) SCR 419 , 1981 UJ 555 , 1981 (21) CTR 349, 1981 (6) TAXMAN 35, 1981 TaxLR 786, 1981 SCC(Tax) 168, 1981 (21) CTR(SC) 349, has held that the default of non-filing of the return within the time stipulated by law is a continuing offence. Further, the Supreme Court, applying the principle laid down by that court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India 1970 AIR(SC) 778, 1970 (77) ITR 107, 1969 (3) SCC 311 , 1970 (3) SCR 253 (SC), held (at p. 340 of 157 ITR). ". . . Further, the Supreme Court, applying the principle laid down by that court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India 1970 AIR(SC) 778, 1970 (77) ITR 107, 1969 (3) SCC 311 , 1970 (3) SCR 253 (SC), held (at p. 340 of 157 ITR). ". . . Though Jain Brothers' case was with reference to the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, as amended, brought in a similar provision and a sum equal to 2% of the tax for every month during which the default continued with an optimum of 50% of the tax due becomes payable. As rightly pointed out in Jain Brothers' case 1970 AIR(SC) 778, 1970 (77) ITR 107, 1969 (3) SCC 311 , 1970 (3) SCR 253 (SC), the question of imposition of penalty would arise only after assessment of tax is made and, therefore, in Suresh Seth's case 1981 AIR(SC) 1106, 1981 (129) ITR 328, 1981 (1) Scale 729 , 1981 (2) SCC 790 , 1981 (3) SCR 419 , 1981 UJ 555 , 1981 (21) CTR 349, 1981 (6) TAXMAN 35, 1981 TaxLR 786, 1981 SCC(Tax) 168, 1981 (21) CTR(SC) 349 (SC) on the analogy of the ratio accepted by this court in Jain Brothers' case, the amended provisions would become applicable." The Supreme Court further held (at p. 341 of 157 ITR) " The imposition of penalty not confined to the first default but with reference to the continued default is obviously on the footing that noncompliance with the obligation of making a return is an infraction as long as the default continued. Without sanction of law, no penalty is imposable with reference to the defaulting conduct. The position that penalty is imposable not only for the first default but as long as the default continues and such penalty is to be calculated at a prescribed rate on monthly basis is indicative of the legislative intention in unmistakable terms that as long as the assessee does not comply with the requirements of law, he continues to be guilty of the infraction and exposes himself to the penalty provided by law." * In the light of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the decision in CGT v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar 1975 (98) ITR 540, 1975 (4) CTR 51, 1975 CTR(Mad) 67 (Mad), referred to above, cannot be considered good law. Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal which applied the principle laid down in C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar's case 1975 (98) ITR 540, 1975 (4) CTR 51, 1975 CTR(Mad) 67cannot also be sustained. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. The Revenue is entitled to costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500. One set.