JUDGMENT C. N. Ramachandran Nair J. – The petitioner is challenging exhibit P15 order under which the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has confirmed interest levied for belated payment of tax. According to the petitioner, the levy of interest is illegal and unauthorised. He has also relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer [2001] 122 STC 410 and that of this court in P. K. Damodaran v. State of Kerala [2004] 12 KTR 133 in support of his contention that interest is not payable in this case. I have heard the Government Pleader also. Even though the petitioner was granted sales tax exemption, the same was withdrawn by the Government vide exhibit P1 on July 24, 1998. Though the petitioner challenged the order withdrawing sales tax exemption, the same was dismissed by this court. Even after withdrawal of sales tax exemption, petitioner did not file revised return or remit the tax. According to the petitioner, the turnover in question was included in the return and therefore, interest is not payable under section 23(3) read with section 23(3A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. I do not think the argument of the petitioner is acceptable. In order to consider the petitioner's objection, the scope of the relevant sections are to be gone into and for easy reference the relevant sub-clauses of section 23 are extracted hereunder : "Section 23(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. ... ... (3A) 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." While section 23(3) provides for interest for belated payment of tax due under the Act whether assessed or demanded tax, sub-section (3A) of section 23 provides that where any dealer fails to include turnover of his business in his return filed or when any turnover escaped assessment, interest under sub-section (3) shall accrue on the tax on such turnover with effect from such date on which 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. Sub-section (3A) therefore applies not only to a case where dealer fails to include turnover in his return, but all cases of non-payment of tax on the taxable turnover. In this particular case it is neither a case of failure to include turnover in the return nor escapement of turnover, but wrong classification of turnover in the return. In the original return filed by the petitioner, turnover was declared as exempted turnover. When sales tax exemption was withdrawn, the return should have been revised by transferring turnover on which exemption was claimed to taxable turnover and the petitioner should have paid the tax thereon. Failure to do so is also a situation covered by sub-section (3A) of section 23 because on account of mis-classification, escapement of self-assessment and payment of tax on taxable turnover happens which attracts interest under the said section. The decision of the Supreme Court referred to above does not apply to this case because the decision was rendered prior to introduction of sub-section (3A) to section 23 and before amendment to sub-clause (3) of section 23. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this court is concerned, it is seen that facts are different inasmuch as the issue there was a bona fide dispute on rate of tax claimed by the assessee which got sorted out in assessment. So far as the Division Bench judgment of this court is concerned, it is seen that facts are different inasmuch as the issue there was a bona fide dispute on rate of tax claimed by the assessee which got sorted out in assessment. In fact this court found that the turnover was declared in the return at three per cent and tax was also paid by the assessee, though the final assessment was completed at four per cent. In the circumstances, both the above decisions do not apply to the petitioner's case and since the petitioner's is a case squarely falling under sub-section (3A) of section 23 as held above, the impugned orders are to be necessarily upheld and I do so. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. However, the interest paid during pendency of writ petition should be adjusted and only the balance should be recovered from the petitioner. Order in IA No. 7603 of 2003 in WPC No. 20703 of 2003 dismissed.