JUDGMENT JANARTHANAN, J. - M/s. Ceat Ltd. (petitioner herein) are dealers in tyres and tubes and flaps used in motor vehicles. They are assessed to sales tax in TNGST/137438/92-93. They, it is said, are filing monthly statements to the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle III, Madras-6 (second respondent herein) regarding the turnover and the sales tax amount due by them. They were, it is said, to pay Rs. 38,60,198 on November 20, 1992. But somehow or other, there was a delay of three days in making the said remittance, in the sense of the remittance having been effected on November 24, 1992. Consequently, the second respondent issued proceedings in TNGST/557/137438/92-93 under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short "the Act"), demanding Rs. 7,720 by way of penalty representing three days' interest at two per cent per month for the delayed remittance, namely, three days. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said proceedings, resorted to the present action praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings. 2. The petitioner also filed W.M.P. No. 24137 of 1993 to stay the order of collection of penalty pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the levy of penalty quantified in a sum of Rs. 7,720 pursuant to the order impugned cannot at all be stated to be sustainable in law, inasmuch as the said amount of penalty represented the amount of interest at two per cent per mensem for a period of thirty days, namely, the month of default for November, 1992. 4. Mr. T. Ayyasamy, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice and repels such a submission emanating from learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. To the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval, in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had to remit a sum of Rs. 38,60,198 on November 20, 1992 and the same having been remitted after a delay of three days on November 24, 1992. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had to remit a sum of Rs. 38,60,198 on November 20, 1992 and the same having been remitted after a delay of three days on November 24, 1992. If there is a delay in the remittance of tax, a penalty is leviable according to the sanguine provisions adumbrated under sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Act, which prescribes, "On any amount remaining unpaid after the date specified for its payment as referred to in sub-section (1) or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay, in addition to the amount due, interest at two per cent per month of such amount for the entire period of default." 6. What is demanded from the petitioner, as stated above, by way of penalty was Rs. 7,720 in addition to the tax falling due on the date specified as stated above. If interest at two per cent per month is calculated on the tax amount due, namely, Rs. 38,60,198 for three days, the period of default, it works out to only Rs. 7,720 as demanded by the second respondent. If the penalty was to be levied for the entire period of the month of the default, the petitioner could have been mulcted with liability to pay penalty in sum of Rs. 77,200, which is not the case on hand. The levy of penalty quantified in a sum of Rs. 7,720 represents, as already indicated, only for the entire period of default, namely, three days. Such a levy of penalty cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable, on the face of sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Act. 7. The writ petition, as such, deserved to be dismissed even at the admission stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.