This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the state treasurer, after a demurrer to the complaint had been sustained without leave to amend. From the complaint it appears that plaintiff was a corporation engaged in the insurance business in this state. On August 16, 1937, certain taxes became delinquent as 'provided by section 3668b of the Political Code, which section also provided that unless such taxes were paid prior to that day fifteen per cent would be added to the amount due as a penalty.

It is also alleged that on August 10, 1937, plaintiff placed its check for the amount of the tax in. the mail but the letter *529 was inadvertently misdirected and the check did not reach the office of the State Treasurer until after the 16th day of August. For this delay the penalty was imposed. The tax with'the penalty was thereupon paid under protest, and this action brought for recovery of the penalty. After judgment in favor of defendant, this appeal is presented to us.

It is the contention of appellant that the issue here is one of statutory construction. However, if the object and intent of the law are plain, courts cannot, by interpretation, add to or detract therefrom.

Section 3668b of the Political Code clearly imposes a fifteen per cent penalty on a taxpayer who fails to pay the tax at the time and in the manner specified. Taxes upon insurance companies assessed and levied as provided in section 14 of article XIII of the Constitution of this state “ . . . , shall be due and payable on the first Monday in July . . . and one-half thereof shall be delinquent on the second Monday . . . , and unless paid prior thereto, fifteen per cent shall be added to the amount thereof ... ”. This section reveals no language that would justify a court in relieving a taxpayer from a situation as here exists. The general rule as given in 61 Corpus Juris, at page 1494, which is supported by a number of cases there cited, states: “In the absence of statutory authorization, the courts have no power to relieve delinquent taxpayers from penalties incurred by violations of the statutes providing therefor. ...”

As pointed out in In re Premises, etc., 117 Pa. Super. 132 [ 177 Atl. 700 ], that while tax laws are to be construed most strictly against the government and most favorable to the taxpayer, “ ... it is equally well settled that where taxes including interest and penalties are clearly imposed by law, he who would claim an exemption or relief from them, when so legally imposed, must point to clear and unmistakable warrant of law to support his claim; he is entitled to no special privilege over the other taxpayers which is not clearly and definitely established by law. ’ ’

Judge Shields, who originally passed upon the issues here presented, well expressed the solution of the problem in an ’opinion by him when he sustained the demurrer. He there said in part:

The judgment is affirmed.