ORDER This Common Order shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 398 to 400 of 2006, as common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P. No. 398 of 2006. The petitioner is running a Carbide Industry under the name and style of "Sree Krishna Carbide" since November 1998. The High Tension Power is the main raw material for the carbide industry. The case of the petitioner is, that due to the hike in power tariff for the High Tension, the petitioner was not able to run the industry in a profitable manner, hence, it was closed from 15.01.1999 to June 1999, and again from September 1999 to March 2002. The petitioner submitted the Accounts with the respondent for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.03.1999 and 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000. On the basis of the accounts submitted, the petitioner was fastened with liability, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. On the failure of the petitioner to pay the tax, the respondent issued Auction Notice on 24.12.2002 for sale of immovable properties. The date of Auction was fixed on 17.04.2003. The petitioner challenged the Auction Notice in W.P. No. 11417 of 2003 wherein Interim Stay was granted in W.P.M.P. No. 14428 of 2003. Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition, another show cause notice was issued, against which the petitioner filed W.P. No. 787 of 2004. When the W.P. No. 787 of 2004 came up for hearing, the petitioner admitted his liability to pay the tax, and requested the Court to permit him to pay the tax in instalments, due to financial constraint. This Court, accepted the prayer and passed the following order on 27.08.2004 in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 :- "Petitioner seeks to challenge the ultimate recovery proceedings of the respondent herein for the recovery of the petitioner's Tax liability for the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 for a sum of Rs. 4,03,860/-. 2. At the outset, Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire Tax liability, if instalment facility is afforded to clear the entire said sum. After hearing the Special Government Pleader, I feel it proper to pass the following orders. 3. The petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. At the outset, Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire Tax liability, if instalment facility is afforded to clear the entire said sum. After hearing the Special Government Pleader, I feel it proper to pass the following orders. 3. The petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 53,860/- within one week from this date and the remaining sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- should be paid in six equal instalments. The first instalment should be paid on or before 01.10.2004 and so on, on the first of every succeeding month till the payment of the sixth instalment. The respondent shall keep the impugned order dated 09.06.2004 in abeyance and in the event of the petitioners failing to comply with the payment of any one of the instalments it will be open for the respondent to implement the impugned notice without any further reference to the Court. Hence this writ petition is disposed of on above terms. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. No. 774 of 2004 is closed." It is the case of the petitioner, that in terms of the order, the tax stands paid in instalments. The respondent has now issued the demand notice to claim interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, on the ground that payment was made belatedly, therefore, the petitioner is under statutory obligation to pay the interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground, that once this Court allowed the petitioner to pay the amount in instalments, it is not open to the respondent, now to demand interest by treating the payment to be belated. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in T. SUBRAMANIAN v. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTAYAPURAM, TUTICORIN DISTRICT (W.P. (MD) No. 11717 of 2005 decided on 02.02.2011) wherein this Court was pleased to lay down as under :- "22. Indeed, ordinarily, there is no discretion vested with the authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to desist from levying interest or reducing the same. Also, no notice or providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee is essential, as opined by this Court. 23. In law, there is no Estoppel against a Statute. Indeed, ordinarily, there is no discretion vested with the authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to desist from levying interest or reducing the same. Also, no notice or providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee is essential, as opined by this Court. 23. In law, there is no Estoppel against a Statute. But, in the present case on hand, this Court earlier in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 has permitted the petitioner therein to pay the due tax amount/liability in instalments. At that time, on both sides, no plea has been raised in regard to the levy of interest for the delayed payment or the payment of interest by the assessee. 24. An important fact which is to be looked into and appreciated by a particular authority in the present case on hand is that admittedly, the petitioner has been permitted to pay the entire tax liability due amount as per instalments made as mentioned in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 dated 27.08.2004. 25. As against the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 dated 27.08.2004, no writ appeal has been filed and hence, the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 has become final and binding between the parties. As such, the respondent cannot make a demand as per the impugned notice dated 31.08.2005 for the levy of interest in regard to the delayed payment made by the petitioner through instalments in respect of the tax liability for the assessment years relating to 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 26. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in a case where the Court of law has permitted the petitioner to pay the tax liability due amount in instalments, then, the claim/levy of interest by the respondent as per demand notice dated 31.06.2005 for the period 1998-1999 amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,41,882/- is not warranted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case which float on the surface. 27. 1,41,882/- is not warranted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case which float on the surface. 27. To put it differently, when this Court has permitted the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 787 of 2004 to pay the tax liability amounts in instalments as per the final order dated 27.08.2004 by exercising its judicial discretion, then, the invocation of Section 24(3) of the Act for levying of interest for the payment made in instalments as per the order of this Court, is not a justifiable, valid and prudent one, in the considered opinion of this Court". The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that this Writ Petition is not competent, as the petitioner has the alternative Statutory remedy of Revision under Section 33(1) of the Act. It is also the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the Judgment of this Court in the case of T. SUBRAMANIAN v. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ETTAYAPURAM, TUTICORIN DISTRICT (W.P. (MD) No. 11717 of 2005 decided on 02.02.2011) (supra) is under challenge in Appeal, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the judgment. The contentions raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader deserve to be noticed to be rejected. The impugned order, on the face of it, is contrary to the directions issued by this Court, therefore, to relegate the petitioner to the alternative Statutory remedy of Revision would only be a ritual, as the revisional authority would be bound by the order of this Court. Otherwise also the writ petitions were admitted on 18.01.2006, therefore, no useful purpose would be served, to relegate the petitioner to the alternative Statutory remedy of Revision, especially for the reasons, that the order of the respondent is not sustainable, being outcome of mis-interpretation of the order passed by this Court. The second contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that, the order of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 11717 of 2006 decided on 02.02.2011 is under Appeal, therefore, no reference can be placed on the judgment, is also devoid of any merit. As on date, the Writ Appeal is yet to be numbered, and no interim order has been passed. It can hardly be said that Appeal is pending, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. As on date, the Writ Appeal is yet to be numbered, and no interim order has been passed. It can hardly be said that Appeal is pending, as contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader. A reading of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 787 of 2004 decided on 27.08.2004 shows, that the demand order was directed to be kept in abeyance, which means, that there was no demand against the petitioner pending in view of the order of this Court, which has attained finality. The order of demand could be revived on the failure of the petitioner, to pay the amount in instalment as directed by this Court. It is not the case of the respondent, that there was any default in payment. Consequently, in view of the order passed by this Court, directing to keep the demand in abeyance, the demand of interest by the respondent, therefore, is totally misconceived, and not warranted under law. The payment under the order of this Court, cannot be said to be belated, as the demand was ordered to be kept in abeyance. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed, and the impugned orders of the respondent in Va. Vi. No. 479766/98-99, Va. Vi. No. 5881012/99-00 and Va. Vi. No. 479766/99-2000 dated 31.08.2005 are quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. Nos. 458 to 460 of 2006 are closed.