R. K. GULATI, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the strength of a recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Collector (Collection), Sales Tax, Kanpur, fourth respondent, for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 6,424. 32 from the petitioner being the interest under section 8 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, calculated at 24 per cent per annum for the period commencing from 1st June, 1984 to 6th of March, 1985, for the alleged non-payment of Rs. 5,736. 08, being the tax admitted in the return filed for the month of May, 1984, by the petitioner. Brief material facts asserted in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a partnership concern registered as a dealer both under the U. P. as well as Central Sales Tax Acts. According to the petitioner it submitted its return of turnover for the month of May, relevant to the assessment year 1984 and deposited the tax due of Rs. 5,736. 08 through Cheque No. 470980 dated 26th June, 1984, against a receipt issued by the department, a photostat copy whereof has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, in January, 1985, when the petitioner came to know that the said cheque had not been presented for encashment, it sent a letter to the assessing authority, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur, the third respondent, apprising him of the situation and requiring him to take necessary action as to why the cheque had not been presented for encashment. Again on 29th August, 1986 a reminder was sent to the assessing officer to the effect that as a period of six months since the issuance of the cheque had elapsed, the petitioner was ready to revalidate the cheque, but in case of any delay, the petitioner would not be responsible. On 4th October, 1986, the petitioner sent yet another letter to the assessing officer to the effect that the petitioner had not heard anything from him and also as to whether the cheque had been encashed or not. By he said letter the petitioner once again reminded the assessing authority that the petitioner would not be liable for the interest on the disputed amount of tax because of any inaction or delay on the part of the department in realising the disputed admitted amount of tax. Thereafter, it seems, the Sales Tax Officer address a letter dated 12th October, 1986, to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Kanpur stating that cheque No. 470980 dated 26th June, 1984 amounting to Rs. 5,736. 08 was presented to the bank for payment on 9th July, 1986, but according to the information contained in petitioner's letter dated 29th August, 1986, addressed to him, the payment of that cheque had not been made till then and in these circumstances, the bank manager was required to take necessary action in that behalf so that the petitioner was not made unnecessarily liable for payment of interest in the event the validity of the cheque expired before its encashment. A copy of that letter was also endorsed to the petitioner. It is not clear from the petition as to what reply was received by the assessing officer from the bank. However, on 27th December, 1986, the petitioner sent another letter to the assessing officer stating inter alia, that the petitioner is regularly paying admitted tax along with its monthly return and the petitioner was ready to issue another cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,736. 08 in lieu of the cheque issued earlier, but the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest for non-payment of the admitted tax. The assessing officer was requested that in case he was ready to accept a fresh cheque, the petitioner-firm may be directed accordingly, so that the compliance of the order could be made. Copies of the various letters REFERRED TO hereinabove have been filed as various annexures to the writ petition. In due course, the assessment for the year 1984-85 was completed, whereby the returned turnover of the petitioner was accepted. In the assessment order, it has been noticed that on the basis of the challans available on the assessment record of the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,09,498 had been deposited along with the returns on various dates mentioned in the assessment order. The set-off for that amount was allowed to the petitioner against the assessed tax. The assessment order further recites that in respect of the amount of Rs. 5,736. 08 for the month of May, 1984, as there was no challan available on the record of the assessee, the assessee was not entitled to any adjustment and accordingly, the amount was outstanding against the petitioner, for which, it appears a notice of demand was issued together with interest payable thereon. The petitioner asserts that it immediately addressed a letter to its banker making an enquiry about Cheque No. 470980, dated 26th June, 1984, referred earlier and the bank by its letter dated 28th February, 1989, informed the petitioner that the said cheque was never presented for payment during its currency period, i. e. , 25th December, 1984. The bank further informed the petitioner that another cheque bearing No. 470979 dated 26th June, 1984 for Rs. 4,250. 61 had been paid on 10th July, 1984. It may be observed that the other cheque REFERRED TO in the letter of the bank was also deposited by the petitioner with the Sales Tax Department against the same receipt against which the disputed cheque was deposited. Fortified with the information furnished by the bank, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 5,736. 08 and also made a written representation dated 7th of March, 1989, disputing its liability to pay the interest on that amount. It seems that the assessing officer did not accept the petitioner's claim, inasmuch as, he issued notice dated 15th March, 1989, demanding the payment of interest for the period 1st June, 1986 to 6th March, 1989, i. e. , from the date the disputed amount of tax fell due for payment up to the date it was paid. A copy of that notice has been annexed as annexure 10 to the writ petition. As the petitioner did not pay the amount as required by the notice dated 15th March, 1989, the impugned recovery proceedings have been taken against the petitioner. The main relief claimed by the petitioner is that a suitable writ, order or direction be issued by this Court directing respondents Nos. 3 and 4 not to realise the amount of interest from the petitioner in pursuance to notice as well as recovery certificate, annexures 10 and 11 referred earlier. Although this writ petition was filed in the year 1989, till date, no counter-affidavit has been filed, despite adequate opportunity being granted to the respondents. In the circumstances, we are left with no other option but to proceed with the case taking the averments made in the writ petition as uncontroverted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Standing Counsel. It was argued that the petitioner cannot be saddled with any liability for the payment of interest, inasmuch as, the amount on which the interest is sought to be recovered was paid by the petitioner on 26th June, 1984 through the cheque against the receipt issued referred earlier. Further, if for some reason the cheque could not be presented for encashment by the department, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the payment of interest on the footing that the admitted tax was not paid in time by the petitioner. We have considered the contention carefully and in our opinion, there is much substance in it. In the presence of the receipt against which the disputed cheque was deposited (vide annexure 1 to the writ petition), particularly when the writ allegations have not been controverted, we have no reason to disbelieve the petitioner that it has not made the payment of Rs. 5,736. 08 through the cheque in question. The principles which govern the cases where the payment is made through cheque, are well-settled. In Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 ITR 82, the Bombay High Court has observed : "it is well-settled in commercial practice, that a cheque is looked upon as a payment if a creditor accepts a cheque in place of the country's currency; if he accepts the cheque then he is paid, although the payment may not be an unconditional discharge. " Thus a cheque, unless it is dishonoured, is payment. In this connection the observation of the Supreme Court in Damadilal v. Parashram AIR 1976 SC 2229, may be referred with advantage. In the case before the Supreme Court the defendants had tendered arrears of rent by a cheque within the prescribed time. The question that fell for consideration before the court was whether the tender was valid. In this connection it was observed that it is no doubt true that the issuance of cheque does not operate as a discharge of the obligation unless it is encashed and it is treated as a conditional payment, yet this is sufficient tender of arrears if the cheque is not dishonoured. Sub-section (1-A) of section 7 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act provides that the dealer shall deposit along with, or before submitting the return, in such manner as may be prescribed, the tax which is due over the turnover shown in the return. Rule 41 (4) of the Rules framed under the Act, inter alia, provides that before submitting the return as contemplated by sub-rule (1), (2) or (3) of the rule, the dealer shall in the manner laid down in those rules, deposit the total tax due under the Act on the turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, disclosed in the return and shall submit to the Sales Tax Officer, along with the return, treasury challan, bank draft or cheque for the amount so deposited. Rule 48 of those Rules which provides for the manner of payment of any amount payable under the Act or the Rules, as tax, fee, penalty, etc. , by its clauses expressly envisages that such deposit may be made by cheque issued by the assessee himself or bank draft along with challan in quadruplicate submitted to the officer or authority concerned on or before the due date of payment. The explanation attached to the rule says that the payment of more than Rs. 500 shall be made by cheque or bank draft only. Rule 49 of the Rules provides the manner in which the cheque or draft is to be drawn. The explanation attached to rule 49 reads "where any deposit is made by cheque or bank draft and the cheque or bank draft is encashed, the date of its submission to the officer or authority concerned or any authorised person, including the collection authorities acting under section 8 on his behalf, shall be deemed to be the date of deposit". It is evident from the provisions referred above that the payment of tax, fee, etc. , under the Act can validly be tendered and made through a cheque if a dealer so intends. As observed earlier, if a cheque is accepted in respect of payment due against a person in law, it will tantamount to payment and due discharge of the debt unless the cheque bounces or is dishonoured. Ordinarily, a cheque is presumed to be accepted as a conditional payment, that is to say, the acceptance is subject to the condition subsequent that if the cheque is dishonoured on the presentation the creditor would be at liberty to regard the cheque as a waste paper to resort to his remedy on the original debt. In other words, his right of action on the original debt which would remain suspended during the interval between the acceptance of the cheque and dishonour thereof, would revive. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Revenue that the cheque when presented, was dishonoured. If for some reason the cheque was not presented for encashment by the department in time, the blame cannot be shifted on the petitioner so as to make it liable for payment of interest under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act on the allegation that the payment of admitted tax was not made in time. The default, if any, lay on the part of the Revenue in not realising the proceeds of the cheque though tendered when the payment of tax ought to have been made. The payment offered earlier through the cheque cannot be ignored so as to make the assessee liable to pay interest on the ground that neither the cheque was encashed nor it was traceable on the record of the assessment file. A perusal of the assessment order shows that there is no mention or whisper of the various letters that the petitioner had addressed to the Sales Tax Officer in connection with the deposit of cheque on 26th June, 1984. Indeed, the receipt of the cheque cannot be disputed in view of the letter addressed by the Sales Tax Officer to the bank. On the facts of the instant case, it would be wholly unjust and improper both in law and in fact to require the petitioner to pay interest because the department failed to do its duty and realise the proceeds of the cheque in time. It is also evident from the correspondence referred earlier that the petitioner had made offer more than once to revalidate the cheque or to issue fresh cheque in lieu of the earlier one on the condition that the petitioner shall not be made liable for any interest on account of delayed payment, but such an offer was neither accepted nor turned down. In such a situation if the tax could not be realised, the department itself has to be blamed. Liability to pay interest under section 8 (1) accrues only when the default in payment of admitted tax is attributable to the assessee along, which is not the situation, as it obtained in the instant case. For what has been stated above, we are unable to sustain the demand in respect of the interest made from the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is liable to succeed. The petition is accordingly, allowed. The notice demanding the interest and the recovery certificate contained in annexures 10 and 11, respectively are hereby quashed and the respondents are restrained from demanding or realising the amount of Rs. 6,424. 32 or any part thereof from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. .;