JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, questions an order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.6.2003, allowing department’s second appeal, and thereby holding the assessee liable to pay interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act, on the ground that tax payable thereunder was admitted. 2. Undisputed facts are that assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of G.I. Pipes, Steel Tubes etc. For such manufacturing activity, it purchases raw materials against form III-B. In respect of assessment year 1998-99, the revisionist submitted its books of account disclosing its turnover and liability to pay tax and also claimed set-off under Section 4-BB of the Act to the extent of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. The Assessing Authority, however, allowed benefit under Section 4-BB to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/- only as against the amount claimed of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. Since turnover was accepted, the Tribunal treated the shortfall in tax to be admitted, and thereby required payment of interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act. The assessee felt aggrieved and preferred an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed in so far as payment of interest is concerned, on the premise that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to liability to pay tax, and the assessment order was passed after nearly 3 ½ years. The benefit of set-off to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/- was affirmed but interest was held to be payable under Section 8(1-B). The department preferred a second appeal under Section 10 before the Tribunal, which has been allowed and liability to pay interest in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act, has been restored. Aggrieved by such determination, the assessee has preferred the present revision. 3. Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.R. Kapoor submitted on behalf of the assessee that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to amount admissible towards set off, under Section 4-BB of the Act, and deficient amount of tax could not be treated to be admitted tax so as to incur liability of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act. Learned counsel in support of such contention has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assist. Learned counsel in support of such contention has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assist. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, (2005) 4 SCC 779 , and also upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Idhah, Agra v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow, (2011) 15 VLJ 217, M/s. Kohinoor Jewellers v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 UPTC 865, M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (24) VSTI B-1477, and also in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 160 of 2006 (M/s Maiden Industries v. The Commissioner of Trade Tax,U.P. Lucknow). 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the order of Tribunal contending that turnover and tax was admitted, and there was no classification dispute or the tax payable. Moreover the assessee has already given up its claim of set off in respect of balance amount, and the tax payable, therefore, falls within the category of tax admitted, and the levy of interest is valid. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgement of Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Qureshi Crucible Centre, 1993 UPTC 901. 5. Before proceeding to examine the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, in the factual scenario of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the statutory Scheme. Section 8(1) together with its explanation, and sub-Section (1-B) thereof are reproduced : “8. Payment and recovery of tax—(1) The tax admittedly payment shall be deposited within the time prescribed or by thirty 1st days of August, 1975, whichever is later, failing which simple interest at the rate of two per cent (per menssum) shall become due and be payable on the unpaid amount with effect from the day immediately following the last date prescribed (till the date of payment of such amount) whichever is later, and nothing contained in Section 7 shall prevent or have the effect of postponing the liability to pay such interest. Explanation : For the purpose of this Sub-Section, the tax admittedly payable means the tax which is payable under this Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts mentioned by the dealer or admitted by him in any return or proceeding under this Act, whichever is greater, or, if no accounts are maintained, then accordance to the estimate of the dealer [and includes the amount payable (under Section 3-B or Sub-section (6) of Section 4-B]. [(1-B) If the tax (other than the tax admittedly payable to which sub-section (1) applies) assessed, reassessed or enhanced by any authority or Court remains unpaid for three months after the expiration of the period specified in the notice of assessment and demand, simple interest at the rate of one and half per cent per mensem on the unpaid amount calculated from the date of such expiration shall become due and be payable: Provided that the amount of interest under this sub-section shall be recalculated if the amount of tax is varied on appeal or revision or by any order of a competent Court or authority.” 6. Section 8 deals with payment and recovery of tax. The tax admittedly payable is required to be deposited within the time prescribed, failing which simple interest becomes payable at the rate of Rs. 2% per mensum on the unpaid amount, with effect from the last date prescribed for deposit of such amount. The term “tax admittedly payable” has been clarified vide explanation to Section 8(1) to mean the tax payable under the Act, on the turnover of sales or turnover of purchase, or both, as the case may be, in the accounts of the dealer or admitted in the return or proceedings under the Act. Thus where the amount of tax payable under the Act on the turnover as disclosed in the account maintained by the dealer, or is admitted by him in any return or proceedings, not deposited, the balance amount of tax together with interest under Sub-Section (1) would be liable to be paid. This provision has been a subject-matter of consideration by the Apex Court in Qureshi Crucible Centre (Supra) and is interpreted in following manner in paragraph 2 to 4 : “2. This provision has been a subject-matter of consideration by the Apex Court in Qureshi Crucible Centre (Supra) and is interpreted in following manner in paragraph 2 to 4 : “2. According to this Section, a dealer shall have to deposit the tax admittedly payable either within the time prescribed or by the 31st day of August, 1975, whichever is later. If he fails to do so, simple interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem becomes payable. This levy of interest is by operation of law. It does not require a separate order as such by any authority. The explanation defines the expression “tax admittedly payable”. It means the tax which is payable, inter alia, according to the return filed by the dealer. 3. In this case, the dealer filed a return for the assessement year 1975-76. The goods in which he was dealing fell within the category of unspecified goods. For unspecified goods, the rate of tax prior to 1st December, 1973 was 3.5 per cent. With effect from the said date, however, the rate was revised to 7 per cent. In the return filed by the respondent assessee, he arrived at the tax admittedly payable on the trunover disclosed by him, by applying rate of 3.5 per cent. The authorities held that inasmuch as he had not paid the tax admittedly payable within the meaning of Section 8(1) inasmuch as he has not calculated and paid the tax at the rate prescribed by law- he must be held to have failed to comply with the requirement of Section 8(1). Accordingly, interest as prescribed by the said section was levied. The Appellate Authority as well as the Tribunal affirmed the said levy. The matter was carried to the High Court by way of a revision. The learned Judge allowed the revision holding that “There have been no finding by the Tribunal that the assessee acted mala fide” in not depositing the tax at the rate of 7 per cent. The demand of interest was not justified.” 4. We are unable to see any relevance of the mala fides in this case. Section 8(1) does not say that the non-payment should be mala fide. This is also not a case where the rate of tax applicable was in dispute or disputed by the dealer. The demand of interest was not justified.” 4. We are unable to see any relevance of the mala fides in this case. Section 8(1) does not say that the non-payment should be mala fide. This is also not a case where the rate of tax applicable was in dispute or disputed by the dealer. This is simply a case where the dealer calculated the tax at an inapplicable rate. He did not and could not plead ignorance of the change in rate of tax effected two years earlier. In the circumstances, the concept of mala fides was not relevant in the context.” 7. However, in cases other than where tax is payable under sub-Section 1, the liability to pay interest at the rate of ½ per mensem, would arise from the notice of assessment and demand. The question that falls for consideration, in this case, is as to whether the shortfall in payment of tax fell within the category of admitted tax, so as to incur liability of interest under Section 8(1), or from the assessment notice under sub-Section (1-B)? 8. The revisionist herein claimed set-off under Section 4-BB to the extent of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. The department however, allowed partial set-off to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/- only. This was done relying upon provisions of Section 4-BB of the Act, restricting benefit to the extent of use of such raw material towards sale. 8. The revisionist herein claimed set-off under Section 4-BB to the extent of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. The department however, allowed partial set-off to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/- only. This was done relying upon provisions of Section 4-BB of the Act, restricting benefit to the extent of use of such raw material towards sale. The provision reads as under : “4-BB Set-off of tax paid on raw material and packing material in certain cases.—Where tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material inside the State and such raw material or packing material has been used in manufacture or packing of such goods as are notified by the State Government in this behalf and such goods are sold in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the amount of tax paid on the purchase or sale of the raw material or packing material shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the said notification, be deducted from the taxes payable on the sale of such goods- (a) inside the State, to the extent the tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material from which the goods sold inside the State were manufactured or packed; (b) in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, to the extent the tax has been paid on the purchase or sale of raw material or packing material, from which the goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce were manufactured or packed: Provided that the amount of tax to be deducted under clause (a) or clause (b) shall not exceed the amount of tax payable separately under this Act or the Central Sales Tax, Act, 1956.” 9. The authorities have held that tax paid on raw material actually used for manufacture of end product was to the extent of Rs. 42,26,036/-, and thereby restricted the benefit of set-off to that extent. The first Appellate Authority, however, altered liability of interest under Section 8(1-B), on the ground that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to set-off admissible and consequent liability to pay tax. The Appellate Authority, affirmed the set-off allowed by the Assessing Authority based upon actual use of raw materials during the period in question. The first Appellate Authority, however, altered liability of interest under Section 8(1-B), on the ground that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to set-off admissible and consequent liability to pay tax. The Appellate Authority, affirmed the set-off allowed by the Assessing Authority based upon actual use of raw materials during the period in question. The assessee did not challenge the determination of set-off, and has deposited the amount of deficient tax and interest in terms of Section 8(1-B) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, has reversed the order passed by the First Appellate Authority to the extent liability of interest under Sub-Section (1) was substituted with sub-Section (1-A), on the ground that turnover and rate of tax were not disputed, and amounted to ‘tax admitted’. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. (Supra). The Court was dealing with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, wherein liability to pay interest arose from the notice of assessment. The provision of the nature herein did not fall for consideration in that case. Paragraph 12 of the judgement classifies this aspect in following words : “Under Section 24(1) if the tax has been assessed or has become payable under the Act, then the payment has to be made within the said time as may be specified in the notice of assessment and tax under Section 13(2) has to be paid without any notice of demand. However, as seen above, the tax under Section 13(2), in the absence of any determination by the Assessing Authority, is tax as per the returns. If default is made in payment of such tax then interest becomes payable under the Act. In the present case, it is an admitted position that tax as per the monthly return had been paid within time. It is also an admitted position that there was no assessment, even provisional, by the Assessing Authority prior to the final assessment made after the revised returns had been filed. Interest becomes payable under Section 24(3) on an amount remaining unpaid after the date specified for its payment under sub-section (1) of Section 24. As seen above sub-section (1) of Section 24 deals with an assessed tax or tax which has become payable under the Act. Interest becomes payable under Section 24(3) on an amount remaining unpaid after the date specified for its payment under sub-section (1) of Section 24. As seen above sub-section (1) of Section 24 deals with an assessed tax or tax which has become payable under the Act. In cases covered by Section 13(2) tax must be paid without any notice of demand. But as stated above, under Section 13(2) tax is to be paid “on the basis of such returns”. Tax as per the returns has admittedly been paid. If the returns were incomplete or incorrect as now claimed the assessing authority had to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). In this case, it is an admitted position that as soon as the revised return was filed the Appellants paid the tax as per the revised return. Therefore they paid the tax even before the final assessment took place. Thus the claim for interest, under Section 24(3) from the date that the advances were paid to the sugarcane growers is not sustainable. There is no provision under the Act which permits charging of interest unless and until there has been a provisional assessment and a notice of demand prescribing the period within which the tax was to be paid.” 11. In M/s. Kohinoor Jewellers (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court was dealing in a different factual scenario. The dealer was not required to file monthly, quarterly or annual return as it had opted for payment of tax under the composition Scheme framed under Section 7-D of the Act. Since the assessee was found to have deposited the tax payable by him under the Scheme, the applicability of Section 8(1) of the Act was ruled out. 12. The facts in M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra) is also distinguishable, inasmuch as the liability to pay tax was not admitted, and had been disputed since the very beginning. Para 14 of the Judgement, noticing facts in that regard reads as under : “14. 12. The facts in M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Supra) is also distinguishable, inasmuch as the liability to pay tax was not admitted, and had been disputed since the very beginning. Para 14 of the Judgement, noticing facts in that regard reads as under : “14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the assessment orders, we find that even though the vires of the Act of 2007 had been upheld, the petitioner nonetheless disputed the liability of payment of tax under the Act of 2007 on the ground that the petitioner was importing “electrical equipments” and that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax as it was not a “machinery”. This fact, that the petitioner has disputed its liability under the Act is not disputed by the respondents. The fixation of the liability under the Act of 2007 in the assessment orders are being contested by the petitioner in the appeal. We are consequently of the opinion that since the petitioner has disputed its liability from the very inception, the same cannot be treated to be the admitted tax for the purpose of Section 8 (1) of the Act read with Section 33(2) of the U.P.VAT Act. Thus, for the purpose of imposition of interest, the provisions of Section 8 (1B) of the U.P.Act read with Section 33(4) of the U.P. VAT Act would be applicable for the purpose of determining the interest liability.” 13. In Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) also, the assessee had disputed the liability of tax, and at no point of time liability of tax was admitted in terms of Section 8 (1) explanation. The matter was carried in revision before this Court, and therefore in such circumstances, this Court proceeded to hold that Section 8(1) of the Act had no applicability. 14. In M/s Maiden Industries (Supra) this Court noticed that the dispute raised by the assessee, in so far as only partial set-off was allowed, was sustainable, and therefore, liability of interest under Section 8(1) was set aside. Reliance was placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum, 1992 (2) SCC 579 , to hold that set-off cannot be restricted in any manner to only those sales upon which tax has been levied or collected. 15. Reliance was placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Bombay v. Bharat Petroleum, 1992 (2) SCC 579 , to hold that set-off cannot be restricted in any manner to only those sales upon which tax has been levied or collected. 15. The factual scenario in the present case is quite distinct. The amount of turn over was admitted. There was no issue relating to rate of tax payable. The assessee had claimed set-off under Section 4-BB to the extent of Rs. 57,76,673.57/-. The department, however, allowed set-off only to the extent of raw materials used, and such determination made by the assessing authority, has been accepted after the Appellate Authority substituted the demand of interest under Section 8(1-B) from one under Section 8(1). The mere fact that partial set-off was disputed, would not be determinative in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the position of law allowing set-off to the extent of raw material used alone, has already been accepted by the assessee. The submission advanced on behalf of the revisionist that partial set-off was unjustified in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Bombay (Supra), as relied upon by this Court in M/s Maiden Industries (Supra) do not fall for consideration, inasmuch as the assessee has already accepted partial set-off allowed by the authorities under the Act. The set-off moreover has not been restricted to sales upon which tax is levied or collected but is based upon actual consumption of raw material for manufacturing the end product. There could be no dispute that set-off would be admissible only qua actual use of raw material and not beyond it. Raw material purchased in a specific period, if is not utilized in manufacturing end product and its sale, within that period, then set-off would not be admissible as the object is to obviate double taxation. However, such set-off can be claimed by the assessee during subsequent period, as and when the raw material gets utilized. Section 4-BB permits the tax payable on sale of end product to be set-off from the tax paid on raw material/packing material, to the extent of tax paid on purchases of raw material/packing material from which the end product itself was manufactured/packed. This is clear from sub-Section (a) of Section 4-BB. Section 4-BB permits the tax payable on sale of end product to be set-off from the tax paid on raw material/packing material, to the extent of tax paid on purchases of raw material/packing material from which the end product itself was manufactured/packed. This is clear from sub-Section (a) of Section 4-BB. In the absence of any challenge laid in this revision, the issue of correctness of allowing partial set-off otherwise need not be gone into. No bona fide dispute otherwise surfaces on record. The intent of Section 8(1) read with explanation is clear, that once the assessee is found to have admitted its turnover, in the books of account, and rate of tax is not in issue, the total tax payable becomes the admitted tax. Any set off claimed by the assessee, if is disallowed and is accepted by the assessee, would not form a valid basis for assessee to contend that the amount of tax payable was not admitted. 16. The observation of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminum Corporation, 1999 UPTC 1, in paragraph 4 is apposite and is reproduced : “4. What is required is a plain interpretation of the provisions of Section 8. Sub-Section (1) thereof requires the assessee to deposit within the time prescribed or by 1st August, 1975 whichever is later, the tax that is admittedly payable by him. What tax admittedly payable means, for the purpose is set out in the explanation to sub-Section (1). It means the tax payable under the Act on the assessee’s turnover as disclosed in his accounts or as admitted by him in his return or other proceeding under the Act, whichever is greater, or, if no accounts are maintained according to his estimate. Sub-Section (1-A) deals with the post assessment scenario. It says that the tax assessed under the Act shall be deposited within thirty days of service of notice of assessment and demand. Sub-section (1-B) applies if the tax assessed is not deposited as required by sub-section (1-A). 17. In the facts of the present case, there was no dispute relating to classification of goods or the rate of tax payable. The turnover and the rate of tax were clearly mentioned in the books of account and therefore, the present case was fully covered by the explanation to Section 8(1) of the Act. 18. 17. In the facts of the present case, there was no dispute relating to classification of goods or the rate of tax payable. The turnover and the rate of tax were clearly mentioned in the books of account and therefore, the present case was fully covered by the explanation to Section 8(1) of the Act. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionist lastly submits that the order of Tribunal would cause grave hardship to the revisionist, inasmcuh as it would have to pay interest at a much higher rate than what was payable under Section 8(1-B). The submission cannot be accepted. It is settled that hardship is not a relevant consideration in dealing with fiscal statutes, and if the liability to pay interest accrues under the Act, it cannot be avoided on the ground that it would cause undue hardship. 19. In view of the discussions aforesaid, the question framed for consideration in this revision is answered by holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest under Section 8(1) of the Act, upon the shortfall in payment of tax. 20. The revision, consequently, fails, and is consigned to records.