Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J. The learned Judge, who heard W.P. No. 6447 of 1990 regarding the validity of the penalty levied under section24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, came to the conclusion that there is no question of levying penalty even before the liability is finally assessed under an assessment order and demand has been made and the time for payment has expired. The learned Judge was considering the levy of penalty for the assessment year 1986-87 on the ground that the respondent-assessee had delayed the payment of tax for the months of October, 1986, November, 1986 and March, 1987. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State brings to our notice the amendment brought about by the Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986 with effect from January 1, 1987, introducing sub-clause (2) in section13 of the Act. The said sub-clause is as follows : "In lieu of the tax provisionally determined under sub-section (1), a dealer may, at his option, pay tax in advance during the year on the basis of his actual turnover for each month or for such other periods as may be prescribed. For this purpose, he may be required to furnish returns showing his actual turnover for each month or other periods as may be prescribed and to pay tax on the basis of such returns. The tax under this sub-section shall become due without any notice of demand to the dealer on the date of receipt of the return or on the last due date as prescribed, whichever is later." If this amendment had been taken note of, it may be that the learned Judge would not have come to the conclusion that the levy of penalty under section 24(3) is illegal. Unfortunately, the said provision of law was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. In this view of the matter, the appeal has to be allowed, and the levy of penalty under section24(3) of the Act is to be sustained. 3. So far as the claim of the respondent-assessee for refund of certain excess payment, it is open to the respondent to work out its rights in appropriate proceedings. 4. In this view of the matter, the writ appeal is allowed and W.P. No. 6447 of 1990 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ appeal allowed.