GULATI, J. - (1.) 1. This is a petition under article 266 of the Constitution.
(2.) IN respect of the assessment year 1955-56 the petitioner which is a Hindu undivided family was assessed under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") to the tax of Rs. 1,01,944-3-6 by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, Kanpur, by his order dated March 21/22, 1958. The petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 57,680-8-6. A notice of demand for the balance amounting to Rs. 44,263.69 was accordingly served upon the petitioner on 8th April, 1958. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the assessment order, but before the appeal was decided on 6th August, 1958, a certificate of recovery was issued by the assessing authority to the Collector, Kanpur, for the recovery from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, the arrears of tax amounting to Rs. 44,263.69. On 5th January, 1959, the petitioner's appeal came to disposed of and a result of the appellate order the tax liability of the petitioner was reduced by a sum of Rs. 1,760-3-6. No fresh notice of demand was served upon the petitioner in respect of the tax as reduced by the appellate authority. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner started paying off the arrears in instalments and according to the petitioner, it had paid a sum of Rs. 16,253.12 by 31st October, 1961, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 25,250.35. A fresh certificate dated January 29/February 2, 1968, was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to the Collector, Kanpur, for the recovery from the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 25,250.35 as arrears of land revenue which according to the Sales Tax Officer was the amount of tax due from the petitioner at that time. In this recovery certificate the Collector had further been authorised to realise from the petitioner interest at 18 per cent. calculated from 1st February, 1964. The petitioner has stated that it has paid up the arrears of tax leaving a balance of Rs. 1,833.35 which it is prepared to pay off, but it disputes the liability for interest which according to it comes to more than Rs. 20,000. The petitioner filed an objection before the Sales Tax Officer disputing its liability to pay interest, but its objection has been rejected. The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging the validity of the recovery certificate in respect of interest.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that after the appellate order, a fresh notice of demand ought to have been served upon it. This admittedly not having been done, the petitioner could not be treated to be a defaulter and as such no interest was payable by it.;