Judgment :- OM Prakash, C.J. This appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 24.5.1994 by the Revenue. M/s. Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') entered into an agreement with M/ s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. to supply imported inedible tallow to their factory at Ernakulam with the condition that tax payable in respect of such transaction would be on purchaser's account. The assessee did not file any return of the turnover relating to the above transaction on the ground that the sale was "in the course of import". The first respondent (assessing authority) completed Ext. P3 assessment dated 10.10.1984 determining tax at Rs. 4,98,788/- and surcharge at Rs. 36,273.52. The assessment order was served on the assessee on 4.3.1985 with notice of demand Exts. P2 and P3 calling upon it to pay the assessed tax and surcharge within thirty days. Upon service of the notices, the purchaser M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. paid the assessed tax and surcharge as per the demand notices. 2. The assessee was thereafter, served with two notices Exts. P5 and P6 for making payment of Rs. 1,85,882.58 as penal interest under S.23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for brevity sake 'the Act') on the ground that the tax assessed was not paid by the assessee on the date when return for the relevant period had fallen due. The interest so demanded relates to the period from 20.5.1983 to 25.2.1985. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that the assessee under R.21(7) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 (for short 'the rules') was obliged to file return of its turnover for April 1983 on or before 20.5.1983 along with proof of payment of the tax due for the month and that the assessee having failed to deposit the assessed tax on the date when the return became due, it has become liable to pay penal interest under S.23(3) of the Act from 20.5.1983 till the date of payment 4. The contention of the assessee before the learned single judge was that there was no liability to pay penal interest from the date when the return became due; that the tax in this case became due only after assessment having been made and liability to pay the same arose only after the expiry of the period set out in the demand notice; part of the amount of tax was paid within time by the purchaser as per the agreement and that the liability to pay penal interest at the most could arise only for the balance out standing amount with effect from 4.4.1985, that is after the expiry of one month from the date of service of the assessment order and so the liability to pay the penal interest could be there only for two months, namely, April and May, 1985 and that the rent of the demand is illegal. 5. The learned single judge while accepting the contention of the assessee held as follows: "Para 6. S.23(3) casts a liability for penal interest if default is committed in payment of the tax assessed within the time prescribed therefor in Act or in the Rules. The liability is for default in the payment of lax assessed an assessment either self or statutory made by the concerned officer is necessary to raise the liability for penal interest. When no retimes filed and no admission of liability to tax is made, it cannot be deemed fictionally that an assessment has been made on the date on which the return ought to have been filed Para 7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was bound by R.21(7) to submit a return and pay the tax due on or before 20.5.1983. It is also true that liability for penal interest is attracted once there is an assessment including a self assessment. But there should be an assessment, self (by the filing of return) or otherwise. There was no self assessment in this case and the assessment giving rise to the demand notice and the liability for penal interest was served only on 4.3.1985". (emphasis by Court) 6. The question for consideration is whether the liability to pay penal interest can arise if the assessed tax is not paid with the return, admittedly, required to be filed on due date. 7. (emphasis by Court) 6. The question for consideration is whether the liability to pay penal interest can arise if the assessed tax is not paid with the return, admittedly, required to be filed on due date. 7. S.23(3) of the Act, interpretation of which is germane in this case, is as under: "If the tax assessed or any other amount due under this Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefor in this Act or in any rule made thereunder and in other cases within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand or with in the time allowed for its payment by the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, or if payment is permitted by any of the authorities empowered in this behalf, any such instalment is not paid within the time specified therefor, the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of penal interest, in the manner prescribed, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to (a) (not reproduced as only the rate of penalty is (b) prescribed under these clauses".) 8. From Sub-s.(3) of S.23, it is amply clear that if the tax assessed is not paid, then the dealer will be liable to pay the penal interest. 9. Admittedly, the assessing officer raised a huge demand of tax under the assessment made on the assessee, the correctness of which is not disputed; rather the tax demand under the assessment was paid without denur. It implies that turnover of the assessee was taxable and that being so, R.21(7) enjoined upon the assessee to file a return of its taxable turnover along with the proof of payment of tax in favour of the assessing authority. The assessee, however, chose not to file a return. 10. The learned single judge took the view that the liability to pay tax would arise only after the assessment having been completed under the law or after the self assessment made by the assessee by filing a return and not before. The assessee, however, chose not to file a return. 10. The learned single judge took the view that the liability to pay tax would arise only after the assessment having been completed under the law or after the self assessment made by the assessee by filing a return and not before. It is contended that in this case on 20.5.1983, from which date the penal interest under S.23(3) is levied by the assessing officer, neither was there self assessment not the statutory assessment and, therefore, there was no duty on the part of the assessee to pay tax on that date and that being so, the assessing officer was not right in imposing the penal interest with effect from that date. We are afraid that such a view cannot be accepted. In Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. and Ann v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. (1997) 106 STC 433, the Supreme Court enunciated that if a return is filed by an assessee without disclosing certain taxable turnover, then the consequence will be that the assessee failed to furnish a correct and complete return, the corollary of which is that there was failure to furnish the return. In the situation, when no return is filed, the Supreme Court held that the liability to pay interest would commence at the very moment the assessing authority made the assessment and the interest would start accruing from the date prescribed for furnishing the correct return. Such a view was expressed by the court with reference to the provisions contained in S.10 & 11 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The principle so enunciated by the Supreme Court can be pressed into service in the instant case, in as much as there is no material difference between the two sets of provisions - one which was considered by the Supreme Court and the other with which we are concerned herein. The contention of the assessee that there was no liability to pay tax unless assessment was made by the assessing officer and unless the assessee made self assessment by filing a return, deserves to be rejected. 11. The contention of the assessee that there was no liability to pay tax unless assessment was made by the assessing officer and unless the assessee made self assessment by filing a return, deserves to be rejected. 11. 'In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer - (1994) 94 STC 422, the Supreme Court ruled down that so long as the assessee pays tax which according to him, is due on the basis of information supplied in the return filed by him, there would be no default on his part to meet his statutory obligation and, therefore, it would be difficult hold that the tax payable by him would visit him with the liability to pay interest under Clause (a) of S.11B of the Rajastan Sales Tax (20 of 1954). The Court also held that it is difficult on the pain language of the Section to hold that the law envisaged the assessee to predict the final assessment and expect him to pay tax on that basis to avoid the liability to pay interest. That would be asking him to do the mere impossible. In short, the Court held that so long as the tax is paid as per the assessment made and as per the return filed by an assessee, there will be no interest liability. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Supra) was distinguished by the Court in Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. (Supra). J.K. Synthetics Ltd. filed returns of turnover for the assessment years from 1975-76 to 1977-78 on the premise that the amount of freight (charged in respect of sale of cement under the Central Control Order) did not form part of the sale price for the purpose of payment of sales tax and paid tax accordingly contending that it did no bonafide. But the Supreme Court rejected such contention in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1979) 43 STC 13. In view of the decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the dispute arose whether the company should pay interest on the date of filing of the returns or from the date of determination of tax payable in the final assessment. Revenue then contended that interest became payable from the date on which the original return was filed. In view of the decision in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the dispute arose whether the company should pay interest on the date of filing of the returns or from the date of determination of tax payable in the final assessment. Revenue then contended that interest became payable from the date on which the original return was filed. The said contention was negatived in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Supra) on the ground that whether sale price would be inclusive of freight was a highly complicated issue and the assessee bona fide field returns without including freight in the sale price. In the case at hand, the assessee has not demonstrated that there was highly debatable dispute and that it bona fide believed that the sale was "in the course of import". Rather, on the assessment being made the tax was deposited without any demur. It is for this reason, we hold that the appellant cannot avail M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (Supra) to its advantage. 12. If the view taken by the learned single judge is accepted, then a dealer who has not filed any return and who has not paid any tax will stand on the better footing than the one who filed return and paid tax, but not disclosed full turnover and not paid full tax. The learned single judge realised this anomaly, but attempted to overcome the same in these words: "Para 8 But it must be noted that the assessee in the latter case gets exposed to very severe penalty under S.45(1)(c) which may be as high as twice the amount of the tax involved." S.45A(1)(c) of the Act leads to the offence when any person has failed to submit any return as required by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under, simply because a dealer will expose himself to the risk of penalty for the offence, envisaged by S.45A(1)(c) of the Act, if no return is filed, no legal inference can be drawn that such dealer will be exonerated of the penal interest for the omission, as contemplated by S.23(3). For the above reasons, we see no force in the view taken by the learned single judge that unless there is assessed tax on the date of commencement of penal interest, such interest cannot be imposed under sub-s.(3) of S.23 of the Act. 13. For the above reasons, we see no force in the view taken by the learned single judge that unless there is assessed tax on the date of commencement of penal interest, such interest cannot be imposed under sub-s.(3) of S.23 of the Act. 13. Lastly, it was argued before us that no penal interest under S.23(3) of the Act could be charged from the assessee, as no notice was served on it in regard to such demand. The learned Government Pleader, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in P.C. Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer (1992) 86 STC 259, contended that the liability to pay penal interest under S.23(3) automatically arises, if a dealer fails to pay any amount of tax due under the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee urged before us that the Full Bench inter alia, relied on the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commrl. Tax Officer (1981)48 STC 466, which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) and therefore, the decision in P. C. Abdulla (supra) can no longer be an authority on the question whether liability to pay penal interest under S.23(3) of the Act is automatic. In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra), majority view was that all the three classes of persons viz. (1) those who have not filed any return at all and who are later found to be liable to be assessed; (ii) those who have filed true return have not deposited the full amount of tax which they are liable to pay; and (iii) those who have filed a return making a wrong claim that either the whole or any part of the turnover is not taxable and who are subsequently found to have made a wrong claim, would be placed in the same position and they would all be liable to pay interest on the amount of tax which they are liable to pay, but have not paid as required by S.7(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) the Court, however, held that there will be no interest liability so long as tax was paid as per the assessment made by the assessing authority or as per the return, filed by an assessee. It is only to this extent, the majority view in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) was overruled. 14. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra) the Court, however, held that there will be no interest liability so long as tax was paid as per the assessment made by the assessing authority or as per the return, filed by an assessee. It is only to this extent, the majority view in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) was overruled. 14. In P. C. Abdulla (supra), the Full Bench extracted the following portion of the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra): "We are concerned in this case with the liability of the assessee to pay interest on the amount of tax which had remained un paid. Tax, interest and penalty are three different concepts. Tax becomes payable by an assessee by virtue of the charging provision in a taxing statute. Penalty ordinarily becomes payable when it is found that an assessee wilfully violated any of the provisions of the taxing statute. Interest is ordinarily claimed from an assessee who had withheld payment of any tax payable by him and it is always calculated at the prescribed rate on the basis of the actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of delay in paying it. It may not be wrong to say that such interest is compensatory in character and not penal". (We are not concerned herein with the other aspects decided in the said case). From the above reproduced material from the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra), it is amply clear that the Full Bench did not rely on that authority for the proposition whether liability to pay penal interest is automatic or whether a dealer need be served with any demand notice. Viewed from this angle, the Full Bench decision still holds field, notwithstanding the majority decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. on a different proposition having been over ruled by J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra). In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 24.5.1994 is set aside.