ORDER A. K. MATHUR, C.J. : The petitioners by this writ petition have challenged the validity of s. 234A of the IT Act, 1961, and have also challenged levy of interest vide Annexure P4, P5, P6, P7, P8 and P9 and orders passed under s. 264 vide Annexures P14, P15 and P16. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners were assessed by Dy. CIT, Special Range, Bhilai, in respect of their income. In respect of all the petitioners, the year of assessment is 1991-92 and relevant accounting year is the year ending on 31st March, 1991. The petitioners submitted their returns voluntarily for the aforesaid period on 3rd May, 1993. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued notices purporting to be under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act of 1961), on 4th May, 1993. In response to the aforesaid notices, the petitioners filed the same very returns which were filed on 3rd May, 1993, saying that the returns be treated as filed in response to notices under s. 148 of the Act of 1961. 3. The petitioners declared their income from various sources. The returns filed by the petitioners were substantially accepted by the AO with small variation. Thereafter, the petitioners were assessed and notices of demand were sent charging tax and interest by the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P4, P5 and P6 and computing-sheets Annexure, P7, P8 and P9, respectively. From computing sheets, it appears that the respondent No. 2 had charged interest under ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act of 1961. 4. On receipt of assessment orders and notices of demand, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under s. 264 of the Act of 1961 before the respondent No. 3 challenging charging of interest under the aforesaid sections. Similar applications were also filed by the petitioners 2 and 3. In the revisions, it was pleaded that the returns were delayed due to mistake of the counsel of the petitioners with evidence to this effect in the form of affidavit of one Shri S. Ramanathan who was working as the counsel with Shri K. C. Jhabak, Advocate, of the petitioners. However, that plea was rejected and it was held that the interest is chargeable. It was also contended before the CIT that he has no power to hear the revisions but the same was negatived. However, that plea was rejected and it was held that the interest is chargeable. It was also contended before the CIT that he has no power to hear the revisions but the same was negatived. The orders passed by the CIT are placed on record as Annexures P14, P15 and P16. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging validity of s. 234A of the Act of 1961 as being violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as s. 234A of the Act of 1961 is concerned, it is only a regulatory measure to see that the parties do not commit default in the matter of filing of their returns of income. Therefore, it has been enacted as a compensatory measure in order to compensate the revenue where return is furnished after the due date by way of interest at the rate of 2 per cent for every month or part thereof comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date where the return is furnished after the due date, ending on the date of furnishing of the return; or where no return has been furnished, ending on the date of completion of the assessment under s. 144 on the amount of the tax on the total income as determined under sub-s. (1) of s. 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid and any tax deducted or collected at source. The idea behind this section is that the assessee should see that he files a return of income in time and that the failure in filing of the return can be levied with interest so as to compensate the loss occasioned to the Revenue which the Revenue would have otherwise received if the return had been filed in time. This provision has already been upheld by the three High Courts in the cases of Santlal vs. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 222 ITR 375 (P&H), Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Union Home Products Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1997) 215 ITR 758 (Kar) We need not burden this judgment with the detailed reference of all these cases. (1996) 222 ITR 375 (P&H), Ranchi Club Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. (1996) 217 ITR 72 (Pat) and Union Home Products Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1997) 215 ITR 758 (Kar) We need not burden this judgment with the detailed reference of all these cases. Suffice it to say that this provision is compensatory in nature and it is not arbitrary or violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, it being only a regulatory measure with a view to keep the parties in discipline and that they file returns of income in time. It cannot be said to adversely affect the parties or their profession. We are, therefore, of the opinion that s. 234A of the Act of 1961 is not violative of Arts. 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. As a result, the writ petition, being without any merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount if any be refunded to the petitioners.