JUDGMENT P. SHANMUGAM, J. – Petitioner is a dealer in vehicles and spare parts and is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for short "the Act". He has filed annual return for the year 1988-89 on April 15, 1989 and a revised return on March 24, 1995 before finalisation of the assessment. The assessment order was passed on February 28, 1997. Petitioner collected by way of sales tax a sum of Rs. 18,44,356.43 during the year 1988-89. However, he withheld the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,89,420 out of the same without paying to Government till March 24, 1995. The 1st respondent by the issue of form No. 24 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules dated June 23, 1997 directed the petitioner to pay penal interest of Rs. 5,60,764. As against the demand petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, which was modified reducing the interest from Rs. 5,60,764 to Rs. 5,44,915. The petitioner put forward a second revision before the Commissioner who by order dated June 15, 1998 confirmed the Deputy Commissioner's order. The original petition is filed against these orders. 2. The sum and substance of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner can be grouped under two heads : (i) The penal interest cannot be directed to be paid without creating any demand in accordance with law as contemplated under the statutory provisions governing penal interest. Only from the date of failure to comply with the notice, there is justification to demand penal interest. Such a demand is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Joy Varghese [1999] 112 STC 651; (1997) 5 KTR 372. (ii) Refusing to grant rebate under section 23A of the Act is illegal. 3. By referring to the wordings in form No. 24 and form No. 5 it is argued that the interest is not legally due unless demanded. Such a contention especially in the present case is not be available. This is a case where the petitioner had collected sales tax and admittedly retained the said amount from the year 1988-89 till March 24, 1995. The said amount is the public money and revenue of the Government and the petitioner is keeping the amount in trust for the Government. The petitioner has been authorised to collect tax under section 22 of the Act. The said amount is the public money and revenue of the Government and the petitioner is keeping the amount in trust for the Government. The petitioner has been authorised to collect tax under section 22 of the Act. The relevant portion of the said section is as follows : "Collection of tax by dealers. - (1) A registered dealer may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), collect the tax payable by him on the sale of any goods from the person to whom he sells the goods and pay over the same to the Government in the manner prescribed." Section 23 of the Act deals with the payment and recovery of tax. Sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act deals with the payment of tax demanded. Sub-section (2) deals with payment of tax assessed and any other amount due. Sub-section (3) which is relevant is as follows : (3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or 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, the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of interest, in the manner prescribed, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to - (a) one per cent of such amount for each month or part thereof for the first three months after the date specified for its payment; (b) two per cent of such amount for each month or part thereof subsequent to the first three months aforesaid." A combined reading of sections 22 and 23 imposes an obligation on the dealer who has collected tax to pay over the same and if the amount due under the Act is not paid by the dealer, interest is automatic. In this case there is no question of demand or assessment. The relevant provision regarding the tax to be collected is under sub-rule (26) of rule 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, which is as follows : "A registered dealer may collect amounts by way of tax or taxes under the Act subject to the following conditions : (i) He shall show separately in each bill or cash memorandum the tax or taxes if any, collected by him. ...................... ...................... (iii) He shall pay in full the amount or amounts collected by him by way of tax or taxes to the Government on or before the 20th day of the month succeeding that in which such collection is made, either by remitting in the Government treasury and producing the receipt thereof or by presenting a crossed cheque or demand draft for the full amount, before the assessing authority." 4. Therefore, in the case of tax collected by the dealer it is obligatory on the part of the dealer to pay the tax collected to the Government as per sub-rule (26) of rule 5. The language of the section is clear, unambiguous and absolute. There is no need for a demand being made so as to request him to pay the tax. The distinction is that he is not the dealer who has to be assessed to pay the tax, but is one had collected the tax on behalf of the Government. He has no right to keep the tax beyond 28th of the succeeding month. Automatically it follows that there is failure to remit the tax as contemplated under section 22 read with sub-rule (26) of rule 5. All the contentions raised by the petitioner has to be read in the background of this factual position. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259; (1992) 1 KLT 658 has categorically held that service of a notice of demand under section 23(3) of the Act is not an essential pre-requisite for the levy and collection of penal interest. By filing the return the assessees had made their own assessment. The tax so assessed should have been paid by the dealer along with the returns as enjoined in rule 21(7) of the Rules. If there is any default, the liability to pay penal interest automatically arises. The dealer need not be served with any demand notice. This, in short, is the effect of section 23(1) read with section 23(3) and rule 21(7) read with rule 31 of the Rules. The judgment in Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker) was dealing, with the case of self-assessment. The dealer need not be served with any demand notice. This, in short, is the effect of section 23(1) read with section 23(3) and rule 21(7) read with rule 31 of the Rules. The judgment in Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker) was dealing, with the case of self-assessment. Form No. 14 under the Rules is required to be made and it is only the failure on the part of the dealer to make payment of tax in accordance with the demand and the liability to pay penal interest arises. The Division Bench did not consider the different contingency that was made even in section 23(3) of the Act. Therefore, the approval of the judgment of Joy Varghese [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker) by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Joy Varghese [1999] 112 STC 651; (1997) 5 KTR 372, is only to that extent. The Full Bench in Abdulla's case [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker); (1992) 1 KLT 658 , went on further to hold that there are other contingencies envisaged under section 23(3) of the Act. One of the contingencies envisaged is that if the dealer fails to pay the tax assessed, his own assessment or self-assessment, that itself will attract the liability to pay the penal interest. The section also provides for other contingencies, including the non-payment of tax within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand issued. In such a situation where by self-assessment the tax becomes due on the filing of the return, a further notice of demand in form No. 14 is irrelevant or a surplusage. Rule 31 totally dispenses with service of a notice of demand for payment of interest due under section 23(3) of the Act. Therefore the decision of the Full Bench in P. C. Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker), is still in force. In so far as the present case is concerned, this decision squarely applies. Another Full Bench of this Court in Pathrose Rice and Oil Mills v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle [1992] 86 STC 274, has also taken the view that accrual of penal interest under section 23(3) of the Act is automatic and is not dependent on any demand being made by the sales tax authorities for payment of that amount. Another Full Bench of this Court in Pathrose Rice and Oil Mills v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Special Circle [1992] 86 STC 274, has also taken the view that accrual of penal interest under section 23(3) of the Act is automatic and is not dependent on any demand being made by the sales tax authorities for payment of that amount. Yet another Full Bench in Hill Produce Corporation v. State of Kerala [1999] 112 STC 596 (Ker); (1992) 1 KTR 1 had taken the view that it was not necessary that the demand notice should have been served in form No. 14-B for directing the liability of penal interest under section 23(3) of the Act inasmuch as the said liability for the process of section 23(3) of the Act read with the first part of rule 21 of the Rules. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Sales Tax Officer v. Maruthi Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 113 STC 19 infra; (1998) 2 KLT 248 considering a similar question whether penal interest under section 23(3) of the Act is leviable on the ground that the tax assessed was not paid by the assessee on the date when the return for the relevant period are fallen due held in favour of the Revenue. The Division Bench after taking note of the relevant decisions and points held as follows : "A dealer who files return without disclosing full turnover and without paying full tax, will be subjected to penal interest under sub-section (3)." The Division Bench by referring to the Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC) and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC) held as follows : "....... In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC) and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC) held as follows : "....... In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC), majority view was that all the three classes of persons, viz., (i) 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 section 7(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC), 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. [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC), was overruled." Ultimately the Division Bench held that the Full Bench decision in Abdulla's case [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker); (1992) 1 KLT 658 , still holds field, notwithstanding the majority decision in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC), on a different proposition having been overruled by J. K. Synthetics Ltd. [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC). 7. On the second contention, it is to be stated that section 23A of the Act provides for reduction of interest in certain cases. Three conditions are to be fulfilled for getting the benefit under this section : (i) a person must be in arrears to pay tax; (ii) a notice of demand in respect of them should have been served on him on or before March 31, 1995; (iii) the entire arrears of tax should have been paid on or before December 31, 1997. Since the last two conditions are not satisfied by the petitioner in this case, he is not entitled to the benefit of this said section. For the above reasons I do not find any ground warranting interference with the orders passed by the authorities below. Hence the original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 26210 of 1998 in O.P. No. 14810 of 1998K dismissed. Petition dismissed.