JUDGMENT S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. Petitioner is a registered dealer in rubber and latex. It is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. For the assessment year 1988-89, petitioner filed annual return declaring a total turnover of Rs. 4,49,86,790. Petitioner was assessed to pay tax of Rs. 35,98,943.20 which included turnover tax also. Assessment order is dated December 23, 1989 and is produced as exhibit P1. It further stated that an amount of Rs. 35,50,408.90 had already been paid by the assessee and hence the balance tax due was Rs. 48,534. On receipt of exhibit P1, petitioner informed the assessing authority that an amount of Rs. 48,535 was paid on January 11, 1989 and this was not taken into account by mistake. If the above amount was also taken into account, there would be balance. There was no demand subsequently by the assessing officer. 3. Third respondent informed by letter dated February 11, 1990 that petitioner has to remit an amount of Rs. 21,764 as penal interest for the year 1988-89. This evidence by exhibit P3. According to the third respondent, the turnover tax was not deposited on due dates. Petitioner remitted two amounts towards turnover tax : (1) Rs. 48, 535 on January 19, 1989 and (2) Rs. 1,76,399 on May 11, 1989. The turnover tax payable was Rs. 2,24,933.95. To exhibit P3, petitioner gave exhibit P4 reply. Liability to pay turnover tax is admitted and it is contended that petitioner was advised that the tax need be paid only at the end of the year. Thereafter, petitioner received notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 to pay penal interest. Hence this original petition is filed challenging exhibits P3 and P5 notices. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the levy of penal interest is without jurisdiction. He contended that there was no demand for payment of tax and it is only on default that penal interest can be levied. He further submitted that there was no rule to pay turnover tax before the end of the year. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the levy of penal interest is without jurisdiction. He contended that there was no demand for payment of tax and it is only on default that penal interest can be levied. He further submitted that there was no rule to pay turnover tax before the end of the year. Learned counsel relief on the decisions reported in Maruti Wire Industries Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [1995] 96 STC 157 (Ker); (1994) 2 KLT 44 , Cochin Tea Syndicate v. Assistant Commissioner [1993] 91 STC 156 (Ker); (1993) KLJ (TC) 258 and Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1995] 96 STC 565 (Ker); (1994) 1 KLT 129 . 5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that this is a case where the turnover is admitted. As and when the turnover exceeds the limit, petitioner is liable to pay the turnover tax. There is no necessity to issue a demand notice as a condition precedent before levying penal interest. He relied on the decisions reported in Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker) [FB]; (1992) 1 KLT 658 and Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker). 6. The Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in [1992] 86 STC 259; (1992) 1 KLT 658 (Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer) held that service of notice of demand is not an essential pre-requisite for the levy and collection of penal interest under section 23(1) read with section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Paripoornan J. (as he then was) speaking for the Full Bench said : "The liability to pay the penal interest automatically clinches on the failure to pay the tax assessed within the time mentioned in the statement, and the liability to pay penal interest is automatic......" If the tax assessed is not paid by the dealer within the time specified therefor in any rule, the dealer shall pay penal interest. The dealer need not be served with a demand notice. Thus on self assessment or by statutory assessment, if the tax is due then the liability to pay interest automatically arises. The dealer need not be served with a demand notice. Thus on self assessment or by statutory assessment, if the tax is due then the liability to pay interest automatically arises. Decisions in Maruti Wire Industries Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [1995] 96 STC 157 (Ker); (1994) 2 KLT 44 and Cochin Tea Syndicate v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assmt.) [1993] 91 STC 156 (Ker); 1993 KLJ (TC) 258 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. In one case, no return was filed, while in another case there was no admission regarding the liability to pay tax. Decision in Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assmt.) [1995] 96 STC 565 (Ker); (1994) 1 KLT 129 is of no help to the petitioner. There, the question was regarding the levy of penal interest when the assessment order is modified in appeal. 7. As to the liability to pay the turnover tax, the contention was that it arises only at the end of the year and not as and when the turnover exceeds the limit to be taxed. A similar contention was raised in Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker) but was negatived. It was observed : "Therefore when once the taxable turnover for the purposes of turnover tax exceeds the limit prescribed, the liability attaches itself at that moment; and the dealer becomes liable to pay tax along with the monthly returns". 8. In the present case, petitioner filed the return admitting the turnover. Liability to pay tax is also conceded. But what is contended is that petitioner was advised that the tax need be paid only at the end of the year. A portion of the amount was paid during the year itself. Hence this is case where even on the self assessment turnover tax is payable. Hence I do not find any infirmity in exhibits P3 and P5. Original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 7833 of 1991 in O.P. No. 4722 of 1991K dismissed. Petition dismissed.