JUDGMENT N. Kumar , J.—The assessee has preferred these appeals challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, which has upheld the orders passed by the lower authorities foisting interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 for the delayed payments. 2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of servicing of Maruti Vehicles (four-wheelers) as an authorised dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. A TDS survey was conducted on 22nd Feb., 2007 under Section 133A at the business premises of the assessee and his sworn statement was recorded. Thereafter, he issued summons to the assessee under Section 131 of the Act on 23rd Feb., 2007 to produce books of accounts and other documents. Thereafter, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 27th Aug., 2007 calling upon him to show cause as to why interest should not be levied under ss. 201 and 201(1A) for the asst. yrs. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessee gave his reply. On receipt of the said reply, a further show-cause notice was issued on 1st Nov., 2007. To the second notice also, the assessee replied giving the clarifications. However, not accepting the clarification given by the assessee, the assessing authority passed an order under Section 156 of the Act levying interest for the delayed payment of interest amount to the creditors. A common order was passed for all the three years. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A)-V, Bangalore which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee assailing the impugned order contends that the assessee is running under loss. He has borrowed money from the creditor and was liable to pay interest. As he was running under loss, he did not make any payment of interest. But for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, a credit entry was made as if the interest is paid to the creditors. On such entry being made, such payment of interest shown as an expenditure, though actually was not paid and the said amount was really not an expenditure. But for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Companies Act, a credit entry was made as if the interest is paid to the creditors. On such entry being made, such payment of interest shown as an expenditure, though actually was not paid and the said amount was really not an expenditure. Therefore, he submits that the liability to deduct tax arises only when the assessee is liable to pay to a resident any income by way of interest. Therefore, when there was no income in the sense understood under the Act, the question of deducting the tax payable on such income under Section 194A does not arise. Secondly, he contended as the law stood on the date of the relevant assessment year, s. 201 was applicable only to persons referred to in s. 200 of the Act. As the case of the assessee does not fall both under ss. 200 and 194A and it falls under Section 194(1) for not deducting and not paying tax, the assessee cannot be deemed as a defaulter. Sec. 201(1A) applies to the cases where s. 201 was attracted. That is the provision, which imposes a liability to pay interest on the amount deducted or not deducted and paid to the creditors. Therefore, there was no liability to pay interest. Though by Act of 2008, which came into effect from 1st June, 2002 retrospectively, the liability to pay interest being a substantial provision, it is settled law that it cannot be made retrospective and therefore, he submits that though the amended provision is retrospective in operation, the liability to pay does not exist. Lastly it was contended that even if the liability is held to be there, it can be only from the date of deduction till the date of filing its return and payment of the tax. Otherwise, it amounts to double tax, which is not permissible in law and therefore, the order of the Tribunal and lower authorities holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest on the amount deducted or not deducted till the date of order of assessment is erroneous. 4. Otherwise, it amounts to double tax, which is not permissible in law and therefore, the order of the Tribunal and lower authorities holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest on the amount deducted or not deducted till the date of order of assessment is erroneous. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue pointed out that when once s. 201 has been amended retrospectively plugging the loophole of not including s. 194A within the scope of the said provision even though on the day the amount was credited to the account of the creditors and on the day returns were filed by the assessee for the relevant years, there was no liability to pay interest in view of the retrospective effect of the amendment, the liability exists and rightly the said liability has been imposed by the lower authorities on the assessee. Insofar as the period for which the interest is payable is concerned, he submits the matter requires to be looked into by the authorities after getting requisite information from the creditors. 5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities were justified in levying interest under Section 201 r/w s. 201(1A) of the Act ? 2. Whether the levy of interest from the date of default till the date of the impugned order is valid and legal ? 6. Chapter XVII of the Act deals with the collection and recovery of tax. Sec. 190 deals with deduction at source and advance payment. Sec. 194A provides for interest other than 'interest on securities', where any person, not being an individual or an HUF, who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force. 7. In the instant case, the assessee being a company, s. 194A is attracted. They had borrowed money from various creditors. They were liable to pay interest. 7. In the instant case, the assessee being a company, s. 194A is attracted. They had borrowed money from various creditors. They were liable to pay interest. Even if the amount payable to such creditors by way of interest is credited to the account of the payee under Section 194A, they shall deduct income-tax thereon at the rate in force and remit the same to the Department. Admittedly, in this case though interest payable to the creditors was credited to the account of the payee, it was not actually paid. Therefore, no income-tax was deducted at source as there was no payment at all. Sec. 200 of the Act provides that any person deducting any sum in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. Sec. 201 deals with the consequences of failure to deduct or pay. Sec. 201 prior to its amendment during the relevant period provided that if any person referred to in s. 200 and in the cases referred to in s. 194 does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting falls to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he or it may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the tax. Sec. 201(1A) provides that such person/assessee in default shall pay simple interest as mentioned in the said section. Therefore in s. 201 prior to amendment only persons referred to in ss. 200 and 194 were treated as assessee in default which were liable to pay the interest. The said provision has no application to s. 194A. When the said provision did not cover a failure to deduct tax at source in a case falling under Section 194A, as such a person has no liability to pay interest. The said provision came to be amended. Though this amendment was brought by Finance Act, 2008, it was given retrospective effect from 1st June, 2002. When the said provision did not cover a failure to deduct tax at source in a case falling under Section 194A, as such a person has no liability to pay interest. The said provision came to be amended. Though this amendment was brought by Finance Act, 2008, it was given retrospective effect from 1st June, 2002. Therefore, even though prior to this amendment in 2008, there was no liability to pay interest on a person who falls within the s. 194A, by virtue of the said amendment it is made retrospective to all persons who fall under Section 194A and were made liable to pay interest if they have not deducted the amount. 8. It is true the payment of interest is a substantive provision. Any liability to be foisted retrospectively on such persons would cause grave hardship. However, in the first place, the validity of the amendment is not challenged. It is well-settled that the Parliament has the power to bring in any legislation making it retrospective in nature. By such an amendment, even vested rights and substantive rights could be taken away or modified. The only limitation on the Parliament making any such law retrospective is that the person should not be exposed to criminal liability. Therefore, even though at the relevant years, as s. 194A r/w s. 201 stood, there was no liability to pay interest on the assessee, by virtue of retrospective operations, he is liable to pay interest. Therefore, the said finding recorded by the authorities concurrently cannot be found fault with. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 9. Insofar as payment of interest under Section 194A [sic- 201(LA)] is concerned, the interest is payable for the period it is not paid after deduction. The principal liability of paying tax is that of the creditor and a statutory duty is cast on the debtor to deduct tax on the income of interest payable and remit the same to the company (sic-Government) irrespective of liability of the principal debtor. Unless the principal debtor (sic-creditor) files the return and pays tax, then the vicarious liability exists on the persons who should have deducted tax at source or ought to have deducted tax at source. The Revenue cannot collect tax on interest from both the principal and the agent. Unless the principal debtor (sic-creditor) files the return and pays tax, then the vicarious liability exists on the persons who should have deducted tax at source or ought to have deducted tax at source. The Revenue cannot collect tax on interest from both the principal and the agent. In that context, the order passed by the authorities holding that the assessee is liable to pay interest from the date of default till the date of the order is erroneous. However, the authorities have to find out whether the creditor has filed the returns and paid the tax. If he has filed the returns and paid the tax, the liability of the assessee ceases from the day they have paid the tax. That exercise is possible only after verifying the records of both the assessee and the creditor of the assessee. To that extent the impugned order passed is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the matters are remitted back to the assessing authority to undertake the exercise and find out the liability of interest payable by the assessee. Ordered accordingly. No costs.