K. Sreediiar Rao, CJ (Acting) 1. The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation, purchased petroleum products from BRPL and resold the products in the State of Assam to its dealers. The petitioner collected surcharge from the dealers for payment to the Central Government. The Superintendent of Taxes in his assessment order found that the petitioner company is liable to pay tax only on the difference between the re-sale price and the purchase price and the surcharge component collected on the sale price thus rejected the contention that the petitioner's liability is only to pay tax for the difference of price collected from its dealers. 2. The matter ultimately culminated into SLP (Civil) No. 6619/2001. The Supreme Court found that the collection of surcharge towards the OIL Pool Account is based on administrative count and not a statutory provision. Therefore, to treat the same as a component of sale price was held to be justified. However, with regard to the liability to pay tax, it is held that the difference between the purchase price paid by the petitioner and the re-sale price collected from its dealers shall alone be levied to tax and not the entire sale consideration levied by the petitioner from its dealers. In order to quantify the said amount of difference of price, which is a question of fact, the matter was remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes for de novo assessment and the assessment order and the demand notice issued were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Superintendent of Taxes. 3. After the remand, Superintendent of Taxes, passed an assessment order in consonance with the direction of the Supreme Court. Assessments were made for 5 assessment years and NIL demand was raised for payment of balance of interest. 4. The counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provisions of section 22 as it existed prior to amendment with effect to 22nd February, 2000 submitted that when once the earlier assessments have been set aside and notice of demand has been set aside upon fresh assessment and when there is Nil demand, the question of payment of tax does not a arise. 5. 5. Per contra, the Additional Advocate General, Assam for the Department submitted that the view taken by the Commissioner of Taxes in appeals that the interest to be collected on the notice of demand construing the same on the basis of assessment is a correct view and the b levy of interest @2% for all the assessment years is justified in law. The provisions of section 22 as it stood earlier to the amendment are extracted hereunder for convenient reference: "22. Interest payable by dealer. - (1) Where a dealer fails to pay the full amount of tax payable by him in accordance with the statements furnished by him c under sub-section (2) of section 16 or the return furnished by him under subsection (3) of section 16 as may be applicable to him on or before the date or dales on which such payment were due to be paid tinder sub-section (1) of that section, he shall pay simple interest at the rates of two per cent for each month on the amount of the tax remaining so unpaid from the first day of the , , month next following the date on or before which such tax was payable up to the end of the month immediately preceding the month in which such amount is paid in full or up to the end of the month immediately preceding the month in which an assessment is made whichever is earlier. (2). Where a dealer fails to make payment to the full amount of the tax due on the basis of a notice of demand issued under sub-section (1) of section 25 on or before the date fixed for its payment under sub-section (2) of that section, he shall pay simple interest at the rate of two per centum for each month on so much of such tax as remains unpaid from the first day of the month next following the aforesaid due date up to the month immediately preceding the month in which the full amount of the assessed tax is paid, or up to the f month preceding the month in which any proceeding under section 27 is commenced, whichever is earlier, whether or not the payment of such tax has been stayed or time for its payment allowed by a court or any authority under this Act. (3) Where the amount of tax referred to in sub-section (2) exceeds by ten 8 per centum or more the amount of tax payable by him in accordance with the statement furnished by him under sub-section (2) of section 16, or the return furnished by him under sub-section (3) of section 16, or where no such statement or return has been furnished, the dealer shall pay, in addition to any interest payable by him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), simple , interest at the rate two per centum for each month on such excess or as the case may be on the entire amount of the tax referred to in sub-section (2) from the first day of the month immediately following the due date for payment of tax for the period for which the assessment is made up to the end of the month immediately preceding the month in which the assessment is made." Sub-section (1) of section 22 deals with the situation where the assessee does not pay the tax as per the returns or if there is any deficit payment of tax, interest on deficit amount becomes payable. Sub-section 2 deals with the situation where after assessment if it is found that demand notice is issued and if there is any deficit payment which falls short of the amount claimed in the notice, the interest becomes payable. Sub-section 3 deals with the situation where the assessing authority finds that the turn over stated in the returns is found to be incorrect and the amount mentioned in the demand notice succeeding the assessment is more than 10% the interest becomes payable. 6. In the cases in hand, the earlier assessment orders and demand notice passed were set aside by the Supreme Court with a direction for de novo assessments and after de novo assessment it is found that there is Nil demand for the assessment years. Therefore, the question of payment of interest for the Nil demand does not arise. In that view of the matter, WP(C) No. 1282/2008 and WP(C) No. 1279/ 2008 are allowed. Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. 7. However, in respect of WP(C) No. 1281/2008, WP(C) No. 1278/2008, WP(C) No. 1283/2008 and WP(C) No. 1305/2008, the demand notices are issued for payment of balance of interest. In that view of the matter, WP(C) No. 1282/2008 and WP(C) No. 1279/ 2008 are allowed. Accordingly the impugned orders are quashed. 7. However, in respect of WP(C) No. 1281/2008, WP(C) No. 1278/2008, WP(C) No. 1283/2008 and WP(C) No. 1305/2008, the demand notices are issued for payment of balance of interest. It is not clear whether there was any tax liability preceding the demand notices, whether the difference of liability is more than 10% between the returns and demand notice. In this regard, the Superintendent of Taxes is directed to verify and pass fresh orders in accordance with law under section 22 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. 8. Accordingly, the above 4 writ petitions are remanded back to the Superintendent of Taxes, Guwahati for fresh consideration on the basis of the observations made in the judgment. .