M. C. AGARWAL, J. These two revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 are directed against a common order dated January 28, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, in the dealers second appeal Nos. 314 and 315 of 1986 whereby it dismissed the dealers second appeals against the levy of interest under section 8 (1) of the Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal and the learned Standing Counsel Sri R. D. Gupta. 3. Under section 7 (1) of the Act, every dealer who is liable to pay tax under this Act shall submit such return or returns of his turnover at such intervals, within such period, in such form and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed. Under sub-section (1-A) of section 7, a dealer is required to deposit the tax on the turnover shown in such return before submitting the return of along with such return. 4. Rule 41 prescribes the period and the manner in which the returns are to be filed. Sub-rule (1) of rule 41 provides that every dealer liable to tax the aggregate of whose turnover. . . . . in any assessment year exceeds rupees two lakhs, shall, before the expiry of the next succeeding month, submit to the Sales Tax Officer, a monthly return of his turnover in form IV. Thus, reading section 7 (1) and 7 (1-A) and rule 41 together, the liability of an assessee whose turnover exceeds rupees two lakhs, is to furnish a return for every month of the year and such return can be furnished before the expiry of the succeeding month. Since tax can be paid before the return is filed or along with the return, such tax on the turnover of a particular month can also be paid in the next succeeding month. 5. Since tax can be paid before the return is filed or along with the return, such tax on the turnover of a particular month can also be paid in the next succeeding month. 5. The second proviso to rule 41, which would be the subject of discussion in this case reads as under : " Provided further that the dealer may, instead of submitting a return as aforesaid, estimate his turnover for the years on the basis of the turnover admitted by him in his return, or disclosed in his account books, whichever is greater, for the immediately preceding year, calculate the amount of tax payable thereon and deposit a sum equal to one-twelfth thereof during each of the first two months of every quarter, and deposit the balance of tax due on the turnover admitted by him in his return for the relevant quarter, which shall be prepared and submitted in the manner laid down in this rule. " 6. By virtue of the said proviso, instead of filing the return every month, a dealer can opt to file the return quarterly, but for this concession, he has to pay tax in the first two months of the quarter at the average of the tax on the turnover admitted by him in his return or as disclosed in his account books, whichever is greater, for the immediately preceding year and he has to deposit the tax during the month itself and cannot postpone it till the end of the succeeding month. 7. Under section 8 (4) of the Act, a dealer is liable to deposit the tax admittedly payable by him within the time prescribed failing which wimple interest at the rate of two per cent per mensem is payable. The Explanation to section 8 (1) of the Act defines the "tax admittedly payable" as under : " Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, the tax admittedly payable means the tax which is payable under this Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts mentioned by the dealer or admitted by him in any return or proceeding under this Act, whichever is greater, or if no accounts are maintained, then according to the estimate of the dealer and includes the amount payable under section 3-B. " 8. In the present case, the dealer had opted for the procedure prescribed in the second proviso to rule 41 and instead of filing the returns from month to month, he filed them quarterly and for the first two months of each quarter, he paid tax at the rate of one-twelfth of the tax on the turnover admitted by him in his return or disclosed in his account books whichever is greater for the immediately preceding year. In doing so, however, the dealer-revisionist did not pay the tax during the relevant month and paid the same in the following month or every thereafter. For example, for the assessment year 1980-81, the tax for the month of April 1980, was not paid in the month of April itself, as required by the said proviso, nor was it paid in the succeeding month, but was paid on the 2nd of June, 1980, and the tax for the month of May, 1980, was paid on the 3rd June, 1980. Similarly, in the assessment year 1981-82, the tax for the months of April and May 1981, was paid on 30th May, 1981 and 30th June, 1981. Further, the assessee wrongly calculated the tax payable monthly. In the assessment year 1980-81, he paid Rs. 15,000 per month instead of Rs. 75,000 per month. In the assessment year 1981-82, he paid Rs. 1,10,000 per month instead of Rs. 1,18,900. In view of the shortfall in the amount of deposit and the delay, the assessing officer levied interest under section 8 (1) of the Act. Before the assessing officer, no objection was raised and it was contended that if there was any liability to pay interest on the admitted tax then the dealer had no objection. The assessing officer, therefore, levied interest and it is not necessary to mention the actual amounts levied and the manner of calculation. The total interest levied for the assessment year 1980-81 was Rs. 13,200 and for the assessment year 1981-82, it is Rs. 18,536. The dealer challenged the levy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) without success. The second appeals before the Tribunal also failed and the dealer is now before this Court. 9. The total interest levied for the assessment year 1980-81 was Rs. 13,200 and for the assessment year 1981-82, it is Rs. 18,536. The dealer challenged the levy before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) without success. The second appeals before the Tribunal also failed and the dealer is now before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a circular dated August 7, 1985, issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in which it was stated that if a dealer had not contravened the provisions of rule 41 (1) then no interest or penalty is leviable. This circular is of no help to the revisionist because, as the facts narrated above indicate, the assessee had, admittedly, contravened the provisions of the second proviso to rule 41 by not making the payments for the first two months of the quarter during those months, as prescribed, and also by not correctly calculating the amount of tax payable each month in the first two months of every quarter and thereby making short deposits. 10. It was however, contended that there is no provision under rule 41 for the payment of interest and if there is a default, as in this case in complying with the provisions of the second proviso to rule 41, then no interest can be levied under section 8 (1) on the amount of default under the said proviso and the assessing officer will have to look to the provisions of section 8 (1) independently of the said proviso and find out if there was a default in the payment of tax admittedly payable by a dealer. 11. As already pointed out, tax admittedly payable by a dealer has been defined in the Explanation to section 8 (1 ). Since no returns are required to be filed for the first two months of a quarter when a dealer resorts to the second proviso, the tax payable by him, according to the monthly average of the preceding year cannot be treated as the tax admittedly payable by the dealer. 12. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel, that in case of default in complying with the terms of second proviso, interest can be levied under section 8 (1) of the Act, is not acceptable because of the clear and specific provisions of the Act. 12. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel, that in case of default in complying with the terms of second proviso, interest can be levied under section 8 (1) of the Act, is not acceptable because of the clear and specific provisions of the Act. The mere deposit of tax under the said proviso is not a proceeding under the Act and no return is required to be filed for the first two months of the quarter. Therefore, for those two months, the tax admittedly payable will mean the tax payable under this Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer. Therefore, if levy of interest was contemplated, what was required to be done by the assessing officer was to find out the amount of the turnover for the particular month disclosed by the assessee in his books of account, to find out tax payable thereon, and to ascertain whether the amount deposited by the dealer was less than the amount of tax payable as aforesaid. It is only on the amount falling short that interest could be levied under section 8 (1) of the Act and, of course, in a suitable case, penalty could also be levied for not filing the return. So far as the present case is concerned, the assessing officer did not undertake that exercise and there is no finding that the tax deposited by the dealer was less than the tax payable by him on the turnover shown by him in his books of account. Therefore, no interest was leviable on the revisionist under section 8 (1) of the Act in the manner described above. 13. For the above reasons, the levy of interest in the sums aforesaid for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 is not sustainable in law. The revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunals order dated January 28, 1988, it is ordered that the dealers second appeals aforesaid stand allowed and the levy of interest is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .