JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – Petitioner is an assessee to sales tax on the files of the first respondent. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1992-93 was completed as per an assessment order. Since the petitioner had committed default in payment of the tax due as per the said assessment order, first respondent initiated the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act and the second respondent issued a revenue recovery notice (exhibit P1) under section 7 of the said Act demanding a sum of Rs. 3,39,315 which comprises Rs. 1,72,076 as sales tax, Rs. 67,747 as surcharge and Rs. 99,492 as penal interest. Petitioner then approached the Government and obtained instalment facility as per (exhibit P2) order dated June 26, 1995. It is stated in the said communication that the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner is temporarily stayed subject to the petitioner pays 40 per cent of the demand on or before August 30, 1995 and the balance amount to be paid in six monthly instalments commencing from September 30, 1995. Pursuant to the said direction the petitioner had remitted Rs. 1,35,000 on August 30, 1995 evidenced by exhibit P3 and also paid the instalments; Rs. 34,000 on October 6, 1995 (exhibit P4), Rs. 75,000 by way of cheque (exhibit P5), Rs. 33,500 on January 8, 1996 (exhibit P6), Rs. 35,000 on February 2, 1996 (exhibit P7) and Rs. 26,015 on February 28, 1996 (exhibit P8). According to the petitioner the entire amount due as per exhibit P1 has thus been paid. However, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a declaration that no interest can be levied from the petitioner after exhibit P2 order by the third respondent and during the period of operation of the stay order and instalment payments and the amendment made to section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the KGST Act") deleting the relevant part from the section by Finance Act, 1994 is void and unconstitutional. Petitioner also seeks for a declaration that sub-section (3A) of section 23 of the KGST Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1994 is void. Other reliefs are also sought for. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. Petitioner also seeks for a declaration that sub-section (3A) of section 23 of the KGST Act as amended by the Finance Act, 1994 is void. Other reliefs are also sought for. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated therein that section 23(3A) of the KGST Act came into force with effect from July 29, 1994 that the petitioner was assessed for an amount of Rs. 3,39,315 for the assessment period 1992-93 and since the petitioner had failed to pay the tax due for the said year, petitioner is liable to pay interest under section 23(3) of the KGST Act from the date on which the tax ought to have been remitted. It is admitted that the petitioner had paid the amount demanded in exhibit P1 by way of instalments pursuant to exhibit P2 order. It is also stated that the decision relied on by the petitioner was based on the provisions of section 23(3) of the KGST Act as it stood prior to the introduction of sub-section (3A) as per the Finance Act, 1994. It is further stated that the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 23 of the KGST Act apply to all taxes and other amounts pending payment as on April 1, 1994. The challenge to the provisions of section 23(3A) of the KGST Act was also stated to be unsustainable. I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. Special Government Pleader submits that the demand of penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 till the date of payment of the entire amount was justified and that section 23(3A) later renumbered as 23(3B) would apply to the present case as per which notwithstanding the instalment facility granted by the Government, the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amounts. Special Government Pleader alternately submits that even under exhibit P2 Government Order the payment of 40 per cent of the amount due as per exhibit P1 was to be paid only on August 30, 1995 and therefore, at any rate, petitioner is bound to pay interest for the period from February 9, 1995 to August 30, 1995. In support of the above, Special Government Pleader relied on the decision of a division Bench of this court in Narani Stores v. State of Kerala [2001] 122 STC 621 (Ker); [2001] 9 KTR 355. In support of the above, Special Government Pleader relied on the decision of a division Bench of this court in Narani Stores v. State of Kerala [2001] 122 STC 621 (Ker); [2001] 9 KTR 355. I have considered the rival submissions. The assessment of the petitioner, who was an abkari contractor, was completed based on compounding facility availed under section 7(14) of the KGST Act. Hence there was no dispute regarding the amount of tax fixed for the assessment year 1992-93 and demanded in exhibit P1. Petitioner also did not dispute the liability of the demand of Rs. 99,492 towards penal interest made in exhibit P1 dated May 23, 1995. The dispute is with regard to the liability to pay penal interest from February 9, 1995 mentioned in exhibit P1 notice till the payment of the entire amount demanded in exhibit P1. The fact that the petitioner had paid the entire amount of Rs. 3,19,315 as directed in the Government Order dated exhibit P2 is not in dispute. The only contention of the petitioner is that in view of exhibit P2 order in which there is no mention regarding the payment of interest for any period and in view of the decision of a division Bench of this court in Aman Traders v. State of Kerala [1987] 66 STC 54, the petitioner cannot be made liable for interest for the period after exhibit P2 Government Order. From the facts stated, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the liability to pay penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 till June 26, 1995 (exhibit P2). The dispute is only with regard to the liability to pay penal interest for the period after June 26, 1995, i.e., the period covered by the Government Order under which the petitioner had paid the entire amount demanded under exhibit P1 in instalments. Section 23(3) of the KGST Act provides for penal interest in case of default in paying the demand of tax or other amounts within the time stipulated therein for the period from the date of default till date of payment. By virtue of the decision in Aman Traders' case [1987] 66 STC 54, there cannot be a liability to penal interest after exhibit P2 Government Order if the instalment order is complied with. By virtue of the decision in Aman Traders' case [1987] 66 STC 54, there cannot be a liability to penal interest after exhibit P2 Government Order if the instalment order is complied with. The provisions of section 23(3B) of the KGST Act relied on by the respondents would apply only to a case where the assessee has taken up the assessment/other proceedings in appeal, revision, etc., and the liability has been finally determined. In this case, as already noted, the petitioner did not dispute its liability to tax levied under section 7(14) of the KGST Act before any authority. Petitioner also did not dispute its liability to pay interest under section 23(3) of the KGST Act as demanded in exhibit P1. It is only because of exhibit P2 Government Order granting instalment facility and based on the decision in Aman Traders' case [1987] 66 STC 54 the petitioner has raised the contention that it is not liable to pay the interest for the period after the Government Order provided the petitioner had strictly complied with the facility granted in the said order. In the instant case, as already noted, petitioner had complied with the Government Order without any default. In Aman Traders' case [1987] 66 STC 54 division Bench, with reference to the provisions of section 23(3) of the KGST Act held that the demand for penal interest could not be enforced if the petitioner had complied with the terms of the Government Order which will amount to an agreement. Section 23(3B), as already noted, could not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence there is no need to refer to the decision in Narani Stores' case [2001] 122 STC 621 (Ker); [2001] 9 KTR 355. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows : Respondents are entitled to recover penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 (exhibit P1 quantified the interest only till this date) till June 26, 1995 under section 23(3) of the KGST Act. However, it has to be verified as to whether the penal interest of Rs. 99,492 demanded in exhibit P1 relates to the period only up to February 9, 1995. It is declared that the petitioner having paid the entire amount demanded in exhibit P1 inclusive of penal interest of Rs. However, it has to be verified as to whether the penal interest of Rs. 99,492 demanded in exhibit P1 relates to the period only up to February 9, 1995. It is declared that the petitioner having paid the entire amount demanded in exhibit P1 inclusive of penal interest of Rs. 99,492 strictly as per the instalment facility granted in exhibit P2 Government Order, no interest can be demanded from the petitioner for the period after June 26, 1995. The second respondent will specify the amount of interest due as per the directions issued in this judgment and send an intimation to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter the petitioner has to make payment of such amount in two equal monthly instalments from the date of receipt of the intimation from the second respondent. Petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 8103 of 1996 in O.P. No. 4603 of 1996 (W) closed.