Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Common issue arises for consideration in both these appeals and hence we are disposing of these cases by a common judgment. The only issue that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether the assessing authority is justified in demanding interest under section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act from the date on which the tax was due. 2. WA. No. 2369 of 2006 pertains to the assessment year 1996-97. Assessee was originally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 4,12,96,468/- and Rs.2,89,78,228/- by the assessment order dt. 16-2-2001 (Ext.P1) and an amount of Rs.2,52,110/- was demanded by way of interest under section 23(3) of the Act. WA. No.2370 of 2006 relates to the assessment year 1997-98 and taxable turn over assessed by the assessing authority was Rs.2,92,57,085/- and an amount of Rs.25,30,346 was demanded by way of interest. Aggrieved by those orders assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Thiruvanathapuram. Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 25-4-2006 disposed of both the appeals directing the assessing authority to verify and consider the declarations filed by the assessee and to pass orders in accordance with law. Before the appellate authority contention was raised by the assessee that even if the transaction entered into by the assessee are liable to be taxed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the same is taxable only at 4% since the works contract was done only to Department of Telecom, a General Government Department. Further it was also contended that the assessing officer did not grant sufficient time to the assessee to produce the relevant forms for claiming exemption vide SRO 1728/93. Assesseee had therefore prayed for opportunity to produce those documents before the assessing authority. Later those documents were produced and the assessing authority granted exemption and ordered that the assessee is required to pay tax only at the rate of 4% since he had filed declaration forms. 3. Question that is germane for consideration is whether the department is legally entitled to demand interest for nonpayment of tax at the rate of 4% from the date on which the amount was due. Counsel for the appellant Sri. T.V. Lakshmanan placing reliance on the decisions of this court in I.T.O. v. A.V. Thomas & Co. (1986) 160 ITR 818, Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ld v. Addl. Counsel for the appellant Sri. T.V. Lakshmanan placing reliance on the decisions of this court in I.T.O. v. A.V. Thomas & Co. (1986) 160 ITR 818, Rajagiri Rubber & Produce Co. Ld v. Addl. Sales Tax Officer (1983) 53 STC 370, Nachimuthu v. Sales Tax Officer, (1994) 95 STC 539 submitted that since Ext. P2 being an order of remand, the original assessment has no legs to stand, and the liability to pay accrues only from 22-7-06, that is from the date of remand order. Learned Government Pleader on the other had, contended that the amount was due as per the original assessment and since the tax at the rate of 4% was not paid in time the department is entitled to invoke section 23(3) of the KGST Act demanding interest. The rate of interest to the claimed is stipulated in the statutory provision itself. Reference was also made to subsection (3) (B) to Section 23 of the Act, would indicate that even if the proceedings are stayed by any court or any other authority that period shall not be excluded in computing the period for calculating interest under subsection (3) of Section 23. In support of this contention reliance was also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this court in M/s. Miracle Elastomer (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 2006 (2) KLJ 105. 4. We are of the view there is sufficient statutory support for demanding interest by the Revenue. Assessee did not produce declaration forms before the assessing authority in time for which the assessing authority cannot be found fault with. Prayer was made before the appellate authority for granting opportunity to produce those declaration forms, so that assessee could get benefit of SRO. 1728/93. For claiming concessional rate of tax at 4% it is obligatory on the part of the assessee to obtain declarations from the Telecom department and produce the same before the assessing authority which the assessee did not. Under such circumstance, in our view, the demand of interest for the belated payment of tax is justified. The rate of interest to be paid is also stipulated in the statutory provision which cannot be diluted by this court. Interest is payable by virtue of the statutory provision which prescribes the rate at which interest is payable. Under such circumstance, in our view, the demand of interest for the belated payment of tax is justified. The rate of interest to be paid is also stipulated in the statutory provision which cannot be diluted by this court. Interest is payable by virtue of the statutory provision which prescribes the rate at which interest is payable. Further, subsection (3) (B) to Section 23 says, even if the proceedings are stayed by the court or any other authority that period would not be excluded for calculating interest. The legislative intention in claiming interest is therefore clearly revealed in the statutory provision. The recovery proceedings is however, kept in abeyance for a period of one month to enable the assessee to pay the amount demanded. If the amount is not paid within one month as directed above it is open to the department to recover the amount in accordance with law. With Appeals are disposed of as above.