JUDGMENT Dr. A.R. Basu, Financial Commissioner (Appeals) —This is an appeal filed against the order of first Appellate Authority i.e., Additional Excise & Taxation Commissioner (SZ) dated 15,12.2004 who has upheld the assessment order dated 14.10.2003 passed by the Assessing Authority, Parwanoo for the year 2001-2002 vide which an additional demand of Rs. 42,213 was created against the dealer. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed return for the 4th quarter for the year 2001-2002 but the same was not accompanied with the crossed cheque or Bank draft or a receipt from treasury as required by the provision of law (Section 12(4)) and hence the Assessing Authority created the above said demand which included penalty under Section 12(6) and interest under Section 17-A of the H.P General Sale^ Tax Act, 1968. That the learned Counsel for the appellant Sh. B.R. Tanwar has challenged the order of first Appellate Authority on the ground following : 1. That there was non-compliance of Section 14(2) as per which mandatory provision is there to issue notice before assessment by the Assessing Authority. 2. That the amount of Rs. 40,253/- which was paid in cash by the appellant alongwith the return for the 4th quarter for the year 2001-2002 in the office of Excise & Taxation Officer, Parwanoo and had obtained receipt No. 065430 dated 30.4.2003 issued by one of the officials of the office of Excise & Taxation Officer (Shri Kamlesh Kumar) and the same had not been taken into account and which resulted in creating the illegal additional demand. 3. That the appellant had complied with the provisions of Section 12 of H.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 and acted in a bona fide manner and committed no breach of any legal provision. Therefore, no penalty under Section 12(6) could be imposed. 4. That the appellant has paid the tax due in time and therefore the levy of interest was illegal and further the appellant took the stand that in case the interest was payable under Section 17-A of the H.P. General Sales Tax Act then it should be from the date of assessment and not from the date of filing of return. 3. 3. On the other hand the learned Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Legal) has pointed out that as per the proviso to Section 12(4) no payment could be made in the office of Excise Taxation Officer, save through a cross cheque or bank draft and it is mandatory provision and if any payment of Rs. 40,523/- has been made by the registered dealer with one of the officials (Shri Kamlesh Sharma) of the Department then the registered dealer has done this illegal act at his risk and the Department cannot be punished for the non deposit of this amount by Shri Kamlesh Sharma. 4. The learned Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Legal) has further submitted that no notice under Section 14(2) was needed as the Assessing Authority on the receipt of some definite information had personally visited the business premises of the registered dealer and done inspection on 12.9.2003 and in this inspection Shri Baldev Singh an employee of the company had joined and thereafter on 15.9.2003 again Shri Baldev Singh had joined the assessment proceeding and therefore proper opportunity had been afforded and no prejudice had been caused to the appellant. 5. In the end the learned AETC (L) has further submitted that there was no compliance of Section 12 as the registered dealer properly knew the statutory provisions and inspite of that chose to deposit the tax in cash with one of the employee Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and has made itself liable for an action under Section 12 (6) and under Section 17-A, as any return filed without the proper and legal mode of deposit of tax is no return. The legal provisions under Section 12(4) is as under : 12(4) Before a registered dealer furnishes the return required by sub-section (2), he shall, in the prescribed manner, pay into a Government Treasury or the Reserve Bank of India, or at the office of the [Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner or Excise & Taxation Officer-in-charge of the District], the full amount of tax due from him under the Act according to such returns and shall furnish alongwith the retunes a receipt from such treasury, bank or office of the [Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner or Excise & Taxation Officer-in-charge of the District] showing the payment of such amount: Provided that no payment of such amount shall be accepted at the office of the [Assistant Excise & Taxation Commissioner or Excise & Taxation Officer-in-charge of the District] save through a crossed cheque or bank draft payable at a [local branch of a Scheduled bank] in favour of the assessing authority[:] [Provided further that where the payment is made through a crossed cheque, such crossed cheque must be delivered in the office of the assessing authority concerned, not less than ten clear days before the expiry of the due date prescribed under sub-section (3) for filing the return, and the dealer shall be deemed to have made the payment on the date on which such crossed cheque, after its presentation in the bank, is actually credited into the Government account and necessary receipt is issued by the bank in favour of the dealer] : [Provided further that where the payment is made through a crossed cheque and the cheque is dishonored, the dealer shall be deemed to have not made the payment and shall be liable to any action which may be taken for not making payment under the Act or the rules framed there under. 6. From the reading of statutory provisions of Section 12(4) and its proviso, it is clear that the tax amount could only be deposited through bank draft or cheque and no such amount could be deposited in cash in the office of Excise & Taxation Officer Parwanoo. It has been gathered from the facts of this case that no such amount of tax has reached the coffers of the Government and therefore it cannot be said that tax has been paid. It has been gathered from the facts of this case that no such amount of tax has reached the coffers of the Government and therefore it cannot be said that tax has been paid. The appellant dealer was well aware that he was depositing the tax amount otherwise by way of the manner prescribed and indulging in illegal act. Any payment made to an unauthorized person cannot be termed as legal and proper deposit of tax and the registered dealer can not be allowed to take this plea that it had deposited the tax amount with Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sharma who is an official of the Excise & Taxation Department and therefore payment made by him was illegal. 7. The imposition of the interest and penalty appears to be legal and proper as the registered dealer had knowingly deposited the tax amount with Shri Kamlesh Sharma illegally. There was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 14(2) as the assessment had been taken up after the personal inspection made by the Assessing Authority and the representative of the dealer had participated in assessment proceedings and there was no prejudice caused to the registered dealer. 8. Therefore, there is no force in the appeal and it is dismissed. Announced in the open court today i.e 11.8.2005. The record of the case be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal dismissed.