Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased Mohammed Issac Haji Moosa Sait. He challenges Ext. P1 order in so far as it relates to a demand for payment of interest under S.32 of the Gift Tax Act, 1953 in the sum of Rs.81.981/- for the period from 17-12-1971 to 31-3-1979. He also challenges Ext.P3 order of the Commissioner of Income tax affirming Ext.P1. 2. The Gift Tax Officer completed the assessment on 27-7-1968 respecting the estate of the deceased and the taxable gift was determined at Rs.4,39,600/-. The gift tax payable thereon was determined at Rs.1,57,450/-. A demand notice was duly served on the assessee. The assessee was allowed to pay the amount in instalments. He paid a total sum of Rs.65,000/- in instalments. In the meantime, his appeal was allowed by the first appellate authority in part by reducing the gift tax to Rs.15,982/-. As a result of this reduction, a sum of Rs.48,580/- became refundable to the assessee. The refund was, however, withheld by the order of the Commissioner. Subsequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a reference was made to the High Court on the question of the applicable personal law. That question was answered by this Court in favour of the revenue, as a result of which the substratum of the appellate orders disappeared, and the order of the Gift Tax Officer was restored in full vigour. 3. Consequent upon the answer given by this Court and the restoration of the original order of the Gift Tax Officer, the assessee was called upon by Ext.P1 order to pay interest under S.32(2) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 in respect of the unpaid amount. It is that order and Ext.P3 by which that was affirmed that are now challenged in the present proceeding under Art.226 of the constitution. 4. S.32(2) as it stood at the relevant time reads: "32. It is that order and Ext.P3 by which that was affirmed that are now challenged in the present proceeding under Art.226 of the constitution. 4. S.32(2) as it stood at the relevant time reads: "32. Recovery of tax and penalties.- (1) (2) If the amount specified in any notice of demand under S.31 is not paid within the period limited under sub-s. (1), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at twelve per cent per annum from the day commencing after the end of the period mentioned in sub-s. (1): Provided " This sub-section corresponds to S.220(2) of the Income tax, Act, 1961, the scope of which and the effect of an order made thereunder bad been considered by one of us (Kochu Thommen, J.) in K. P. Abdul Kareem Hajee v. ITO, (1983) 141 ITR 120 (Ker.). This is what is stated in that judgment: "... In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, or an interim stay granted by the competent authority, the order, although not final, is provisionally executable, subject to restoration: The finality of ex. P-24 was qualified by and subject to appeal, which was taken before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority itself was likewise provisional during the period allowed for filing an appeal or during the pendency of the appeal. When the order of the AAC concerning the petitioner was finally set aside by the Tribunal, thereby affirming ex. P-2A order of the ITO. the cloud hanging over ex. P-2A was removed audits finality was affirmed. Consequently, for the relevant period, ex.P2A is deemed to have operated in full vigour to make the petitioner liable in law by reason of the Tribunal's affirmative order. If this is the position in law, which I think it is, S.220(2) of the IT Act was attracted in respect of the amount due from the petitioner as per ex. P-2A dated December 1, 1973. It is that interest which is now demanded by the ITC, vide ex. P-6, and affirmed by the Commissioner by ex. P-7" (This decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Income-tax Officer v. A. V. Thomas And Co., 1984 KLT 803). 5. Following the principle stated above, we are of the view that Ext.P1, in so far as it relates to interest, and Ext.P3 affirming that order are perfectly valid. P-7" (This decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Income-tax Officer v. A. V. Thomas And Co., 1984 KLT 803). 5. Following the principle stated above, we are of the view that Ext.P1, in so far as it relates to interest, and Ext.P3 affirming that order are perfectly valid. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.