Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Assessee is a private limited company. It is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner in holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest automatically under section 23(3A) by invoking suo motu power of revision under Section 37 of the KGST Act. 2. Assessee filed its annual return declaring a total turnover of Rs.68,58,454.38 for the year 1998-99. Books of accounts in support of the returns filed were called for and verified which was found not acceptable for the purpose of assessment. Hence a notice under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act 1963 was issued. Ultimately, the assessment was completed and assessment order dated 4-12-2000 was issued. Assessing authority also claimed interest for the amount of Rs.1,31,193/- under Section 23(3A) of the Act from May 1999 to December 2001 at the rate of 6% totaling to an amount of Rs.80,028/- for an escaped turnover of Rs.32,79,380/- which includes the sales of coriander powder, chilly powder, turmeric power produced out interstate purchases. In the first revision the Deputy Commissioner, Mattancherry reduced the interest and found that interest is due only from the date of service of demand notice even though he had upheld the assessment of escaped turnover. Deputy Commissioner later invoked suo motu power under Section 37 of the Act, took the view that the assessee is liable to pay interest on the escaped turnover of Rs.32,79,380/- from the date of filing of annual return to the completion of assessment. Aggrieved by those orders this appeal has been preferred. 3. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in invoking the provisions of section 23 (3A). Counsel submitted that the conditions for invoking the said provisions are not satisfied and the commissioner has committed an error in restoring Annexure-II notice of demand for interest. Counsel submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error in holding that the turnover has escaped assessment. Counsel referred to the unamended provisions of Section 23 (3) and also the provisions amended by Finance Act, 2004 (Act 19 of 2004). Counsel submitted that in the unamended provisions, taxable turnover was not there which would show that stipulations for invoking such a provision are not satisfied. Counsel referred to the unamended provisions of Section 23 (3) and also the provisions amended by Finance Act, 2004 (Act 19 of 2004). Counsel submitted that in the unamended provisions, taxable turnover was not there which would show that stipulations for invoking such a provision are not satisfied. Provision which applies for the question reads as follows: “Where any dealer has failed to include any turnover of his business in any return filed or where any turnover has escaped assessment, interest under sub-section (3) shall accrue on the tax due on such turnover with effect from such date on which the tax would have fallen due for payment had the dealer included the same in the return relating to the period to which such turnover relates.” Assessing authority, Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner have concurrently found that the taxable turnover had escaped assessment during the assessment year 1998-99. But the Deputy Commissioner has taken the view that interest under section 23 (3A) is due only from the date of service of demand notice. However, Commissioner has taken the view that the liability to pay tax would accrue with effect from such date on which the tax would have fallen due for payment, had the dealer included the same in the return relating to the period to which such turnover relates. 4. The assessee is an SSI unit having exemption certificate on curry powder, rice powder, wheat powder and spices powder. But they had effected sales of goods of chilly powder, coriander powder, turmeric powder etc. which were produced out of interstate purchases and sale of those items were not covered by exemption certificate. Assessee however, for the year 1998-99 claimed exemption on the entire turnover of manufactured goods under two separate heads, nontaxable goods and SSI nontaxable goods. As per SRO.1729/93 the processing of goods in question shall not be deemed to be manufacture as envisaged in the notification, which would indicate that the dealer had knowledge about the taxable event of the goods dealt with by him for the period 1-4-98 to 31-3-99. Assessee was well aware of its liability to pay tax on the goods produced out of interstate purchases which alone had been included under SSI nontaxable goods. As we have already indicated, all the authorities have concurrently found that there is escaped assessment. Assessee was well aware of its liability to pay tax on the goods produced out of interstate purchases which alone had been included under SSI nontaxable goods. As we have already indicated, all the authorities have concurrently found that there is escaped assessment. If there is escaped assessment, interest due under sub section 3 shall accrue on the tax due on such turnover with effect from such date on which the tax would have fallen due for payment had the dealer included the same in the return relating to the period to which such turnover relates. Assessee in this case deliberately suppressed the taxable turnover while conceding the turnover in question under exempted column as nontaxable items. Under such circumstances we are in agreement with the Commissioner that the dealer is liable to pay interest on the escaped assessment under Section 23 (3A). Appeal therefore lacks merit and the same would stand dismissed.