JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioner was running a Cinema Theatre known as "Jyoti Chitra Mandir" at Nanded. The petitioner had to pay the entertainment duty as per the provisions of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Bombay Entertainments Duty Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The petitioner had to file returns for a block period of seven days as per the facility availed by him for payment of duty and the duty had to be paid within a period of ten days, as per the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. The petitioner further contends that there was no dispute with respect to duty payable and the return filed by the petitioner, however the payment of duty was not made within time prescribed under the Rules. 2. The petitioner received the notices dated 10-7-1987 and 22-7-1987 from the Additional District Magistrate, Nanded and the Tahsildar, Nanded. As per the said notices the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 88,040 towards interest on duty payable by him which was paid late for the period from 1983-84 to 1986-87 and this demand is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. It is contended that the respondents had no authority to charge interest on delayed payment and to make demand of interest for the said period. 3. The respondents through their affidavit in reply have contended that the respondent had authority to collect interest on late payment of duty as per the two Circulars dated 22-12-1975 and 26-6-1979 and, therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Shri V.C. Solshe, Adv. holding for Shri C.G. Solshe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that there is no challenge to the assessment of the duty made by the authorities. There is also no dispute that as per the assessment the duty was paid by the petitioner but there was delay in making the payment. The notices dated 10-7-1987 and 22-7-1987 do not make the allegation that there were any arrears of duty or penalty imposed on duty, not paid by the petitioner. This is clearly a notice claiming interest on delayed payments only and the authorities had no right to claim interest on delayed payment. The notices dated 10-7-1987 and 22-7-1987 do not make the allegation that there were any arrears of duty or penalty imposed on duty, not paid by the petitioner. This is clearly a notice claiming interest on delayed payments only and the authorities had no right to claim interest on delayed payment. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has pointed out that there is an amendment to the Act by the Amending Act, namely the Bombay Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 1987 which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1987. Under that Amending Act for the first time, section 9-B is inserted and under that section authority is given to the respondents to charge interest, on failure to pay the duty or compensation sum. In the present case, the respondents are claiming interest of the period from 1983-84 to 31-3-1987. As the Act itself came into force from 1-1-1987 the interest till 31-12-1986 is without any authority and the petitioner is liable to pay that interest. 5. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 has argued that under the two circulars dated 22-12-1975 and 26th June, 1979 which are filed on record by the respondents, the respondents can claim interest. However in this respect it has to be noted that both these circulars relate to the provisions of section 9-A of the Act. Section 9-A gives authority to certain officers of the State Government to compromise the offence registered against a person who had failed to pay the duty. Section 9-A reads as follows :--- "9-A. (1) Any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf may recover from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence against this Act or the Rules made thereunder by way of composition of such offence - (a) where the offence consists of the failure to pay or the evasion of any duty payable under this Act, in addition to the duty so payable a sum of (two hundred rupees) or double the amount of the duty payable whichever is greater ; and (b) in other cases, a sum of (not less than five hundred rupees but not more than two thousand rupees). (2) Where an offence against this Act or Rules made thereunder is compounded by an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, the amount of composition sum fixed by him shall become payable by proprietor within a period of 30 days from the date on which the composition sum is so fixed, and in the event of failure on the part of the person liable to pay the amount of composition sum within the aforesaid period, it shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue." 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that the petitioner was not prosecuted for any of the offences punishable under the Act or the notice dated 10-7-1987 does not indicate that the authorised officer had reasonable suspicion that the petitioner had committed the offence against the provisions of the Act or the Rules. When neither any offence was registered against the petitioner nor there was any reasonable suspension of any such of the offence under the Act then the provisions of section 9-A of the Act could not be attracted. 7. We find much force in the argument of Shri Solshe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The notice does not indicate that the amount was being claimed under the two circulars because neither any offence was registered against the petitioner nor the authorised officer had suspected that the petitioner had committed any such an offence. Obviously, the notice is only claiming interest on delayed payment of duty and nothing more and, therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the respondents that the amount claimed is by way of compromise of the offence registered against the petitioner and as per the two circulars. This is simply interest claimed from the petitioner by the respondents and such interest can be claimed only under section 9-B of the Act but only of the period from 1-1-1987 onwards and not for any period prior to 1-1-1987. Section 9-B is not made retrospective in application. The claim of the interest, therefore, of the period prior to 1-1-1987 is not legal and proper. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that if there is any interest payable of the period from 1-1-87 to 31-3-87 the petitioner is willing and ready to pay the same if properly calculated and claimed. 8. The claim of the interest, therefore, of the period prior to 1-1-1987 is not legal and proper. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that if there is any interest payable of the period from 1-1-87 to 31-3-87 the petitioner is willing and ready to pay the same if properly calculated and claimed. 8. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned AGP has also argued that the petitioner has the remedy of an appeal against the order passed by the respondents, in support of which he has relied upon the provisions of section 10-A of the Act. The relevant portion of section 10-A of the Act reads as under :- "10-A(1) A proprietor who is aggrieved by the order of assessment, with or without penalty, passed by the Collector under section 4-B may file an appeal to the Commissioner within 30 days from the receipt of the order." 9. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, the learned AGP, in this respect, also relied on an unreported ruling of this Court in the matter of (N.N. Rizwani v. The Government of Maharashtra)1, (Writ Petition No. 759/1986) decided on 6th October, 1999. However, it has to be noted that appeal under section 10-A of the Act is provided only when there is a dispute with respect to the assessment or penalty imposed by the Collector under section 4-B of the Act. In the present case, as is already pointed out above, there is no dispute bout the assessment or penalty as imposed by the Collector under section 4-B of the Act. There is dispute only with respect to interest charged by the respondents for delayed payment, as per the assessment. So the provisions of section 10-A are not applicable in the present matter. The facts obtained in the Writ Petition No. 759/1986 referred to above are quite different than the facts obtaining in the present matter and, therefore, the said ruling cannot be used in this matter to direct the petitioner to file an appeal under section 10-A of the Act. 10. In view of this, the writ petition has to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 35,710 in response to the notice dated 10-7-1987 wherein amount of Rs. 88,040 was directed to be paid towards interest. 10. In view of this, the writ petition has to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 35,710 in response to the notice dated 10-7-1987 wherein amount of Rs. 88,040 was directed to be paid towards interest. As the respondents are not entitled to claim any amount of interest, the petitioner is entitled to get back the amount of Rs. 35,710. However, it is being directed that this amount which is already paid by the petitioner, may be adjusted towards the entertainment duty payable by him upto this date or payable in the future and also towards the interest to which he is liable for the period from 1-1-1987 to 31-3-1987. Hence the petition is allowed. The demand of interest made under the notices dated 10-7-1987 and 2-7-1987 is hereby quashed; so also the notices are quashed. Rule made absolute in terms of the above direction. The respondents to pay the costs of this petition, which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Petition allowed. -----