JUDGMENT Mrs. Prabha Sridevan J. - The question raised in this writ appeal is, whether the appellant is liable to pay penal interest on the alleged belated payment of additional sales tax. The assessee/writ petitioner is a manufacturer of elevators, supply, installation and commissioning of lifts. They reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 25,89,922 and Rs. 25,73,12,945 for the assessment year 2002-03. In the assessment order dated February 26, 2004, there was no balance payable by the assessee as the tax due was paid in full and the balance was shown to be nil. By the notice dated April 27, 2004, the writ petitioner was informed that they had paid the additional tax dues belatedly for the assessment year 2002-03 and hence, a demand was made for payment of penal interest at 24 per cent, i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,04,971. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition raising several grounds. The learned single judge (Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [2008] 18 VST 394 (Mad)) dismissed the writ petition and hence the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("TNGST Act" for short) authorizing levy of penal interest for belated payment of tax will not apply to belated payment of additional sales tax since there is no substantial provision under the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 ("the Act", in short) authorizing the levy of penal interest. Next, it was contended that Explanation V to section 2(1)(aa) of the Act was inserted by Act 23 of 2002, effective from July 1, 2002. Therefore, when the Explanation was introduced with effect from July 1, 2002, the respondent cannot levy penal interest for the alleged belated payment for the months of April and May as if the appellant ought to have paid the additional sales tax for the said months, but had not done so. Learned counsel further submitted that the monthly returns for April and May, 2002 were filed even before the insertion of the said Explanation and therefore, the appellant cannot be expected to pay the additional sales tax in the absence of the said provision. Learned counsel also submitted that interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute substantively provides for the same. Learned counsel also submitted that interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute substantively provides for the same. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant had paid the additional sales tax in March, 2003 itself, even before completion of the assessment year and therefore, there can be no levy of penal interest. Learned counsel further submitted that the interest on delayed payment of tax cannot be levied unless the assessment or provisional assessment is made and notice of demand is issued, and for this purpose, he relied on E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2005] 141 STC 12 (SC). The learned Government Advocate for the Revenue submitted that since the amendment by which penal interest for belated payment of additional sales tax has been introduced by the amendment in Act 14 of 2005 retrospectively, the impugned action cannot be quashed. Learned Government Advocate submits that every month, the additional sales tax becomes due and if it is not paid, it is an amount remaining unpaid and there is no fresh determination and therefore, the levy of penal interest on delayed payment is automatic. In India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam [1997] 106 STC 460, the Supreme Court held that interest can be levied and charged on belated payment of tax only if the statute that levies and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this behalf. The State amended the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act by introduction of Act 14 of 2005 which introduced the provision for charging penal interest for the first time, but retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1970. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1999] 113 STC 233, held that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder are adequate to levy penal interest and when no tax was paid on the turnover, the levy of penal interest by the assessing authority was in order. This judgment that was reversed by the Supreme Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2005] 141 STC 12 where the Supreme Court held that no interest can be levied if tax duly paid on turnover unless assessment or provisional assessment is made and notice of demand is issued. For the purpose of this case it is sufficient if we consider one ground raised on behalf of the appellant and that is, that unless there was an assessment order and the tax had remained unpaid, there can be no penal interest. Section 2(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 read as follows : "Amendment of section 2. - In section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as 'the principal Act'), in sub-section (1), - (1) after clause (aa), the following clause shall be inserted, namely :- '(aaa) on any amount of additional tax or penalty imposed by the assessing authority remaining unpaid under this Act, the dealer referred to in clause (aa) shall pay interest as specified in sub-section (3) of section 24 of the said Act, in addition to such amount of additional tax or penalty due'. (2) for clause (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely :- '(b) The provisions of the said Act shall apply in relation to the additional tax payable under clause (aa) and the interest payable under clause (aaa) as they apply in relation to the tax and interest payable under the said Act'." The interest is payable if any additional tax or penalty imposed by the assessing authority remains unpaid. The word used is "imposed by the assessing authority". In this case, the relevant portion of the assessment order reads as follows : -------------------------------------------------------------- Tax S.C. at 5% AST at 1% -------------------------------------------------------------- Tax due Rs. 58,07,733 1,72,102 10,59,632 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tax paid Rs. 58,07,733 1,72,102 10,59,632 -------------------------------------------------------------- Balance Nil Nil Nil -------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, as per the assessment order nothing remained unpaid on that date, so no additional tax was imposed by the assessing authority. Therefore, we do not see how interest can be demanded. On this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the writ appeal is allowed.