Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THE following Question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court:- "Whether, in order to recover interest under Section. 8 (1-A) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, it is necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment order in resrject of the interest and to issue a notice o demand in respect of such interest."
(2.) IN 1963 the Sales Tax (Second Am endment) Act was enforced. Section 2 of this Act added sub-Section (1-A) to Section 8 of the principal Act. That provi sion reads;- "If the tax payable under sub-Section (1) remains unpaid for six months after the expiry of the time specified in the notice of assessment and demand, or the com mencement of the Uttar Pradesh Bikri Kar (Dwitiya Sanshodhanl, Adhinivam, 3963, whichever is later, then without pre judice to any other liability or penalty which the defaulter may in consequence of such non-payment, incur under this Act, simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum 'shall run on the amount then remaining due from the date of expiry of the time specified in the said notice, or from the commencement of the said Adhiniyam, as the case may be and shall be added to the amount of tax and be deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax: Provided that where as a result of ap peal, revision or reference, or of any other order of a competent Court or Authority, the amount of tax is varied, the interest shall be 'recalculated accordingly': Provided further that the interest on the excess amount of tax payable under an order of enhancement shall run from the date of such order if such excess remains unpaid for six months after the order". (Underlined hereinto ' ') by meSection 3 of the amending Act introduced Section 33 in the principal Act. It provides that in respect of a sum recover able under the Act as arrears of land revenue the assessing Authority could forward to the Collector a certificate of recovery specifying the sum due. This provision further provides that the certificate would be conclusive evidence of the existence of the liability, the amount of liability and the person so liable. The Collector is required to recover the amount mentioned in the certificate as if It were arrears of land revenue. The controversy between the par ties relates to the interpretation of Section 8 (1-A) and the question for consideration is whether in the absence of notices of demand having been issued by the Sales Tax Officer requiring the peti tioners to pay Interest, the recovery pro ceedings in that behalf are competent
(3.) TO decide the question of law re ferred to us it is necessary to mention in brief certain facts relating to the cases before us. The dispute between the par ties relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. Assessment orders on the petitioners in respect at these Years were passed by the Sales Tax Officer on June 10, 1959 and February 12, 1963 respectively.;