ORDER : T.Vinod Kumar, J. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “ to declare that the decision of the State Level Committee communicated through Lr.No.30/1/2000/0225, dated 24-11-2003 of the Commissioner of Industries, Hyderabad, is binding on all agencies, including the Commercial Tax Department and interdict the Commercial Tax Department from collecting sales-tax relatable to the period prior to 31-03-2000, and (ii) set aside the communication Rc.No.P/401& 402/OA/200-04 dated 31-07-2006 purporting to levy interest on the said sales-tax arrears for the period prior to 31-03-2000 grant stay of collation of interest of Rs.2,09,95,430/-, pending disposal of the Writ Petition …” 2. Heard Sri A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel appearing for Sri S.Chakrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes for respondents, and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that it had set up LPG Bottling plant at Kakinada, East Godavari District and at Bibinagar, Nalgonda District in the years 1995 and 1996 respectively, and was granted industrial incentives during the years 1995 and 1996 for the aforesaid Units in terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 17-03-1993 and G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20-05-1996 respectively in the form of Sales Tax deferment for 10 years w.e.f. 01-09-1995 to 31-12-2005 and Sales Tax exemption for a period of 7 years w.e.f. 01-02-1996 respectively. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Level Committee constituted for extending benefits, after satisfying that the petitioner is meeting the requirements for being conferred with the benefit of incentives under the aforesaid GOs, had granted admissible incentives in terms of the aforesaid GOs. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, on account of change of view by the respondent authorities, it was held that bottling plants do not involve any manufacturing activity, thus, are not entitled to claim benefits under the said GOs; and that based on the aforesaid change of view, the authorities sought to levy and recover tax for the period during which LPG bottling plants like the petitioner had availed benefits of sales tax holiday/exemption; that the said action of the respondents was challenged before this Court; that this Court by its judgment dated 13-03-2003 held that the benefits under the aforesaid GOs cannot be availed. 6. 6. Petitioner contends that on the Apex Court passing the aforesaid judgment and consequent ramifications of the same would have on the industries, the State Level Committee constituted to implement the incentives at Andhra Pradesh at the meeting held on 28-10-2003, considered the whole issue and decided that the tax holiday benefit shall be withdrawn w.e.f. 01-4-2000 and accordingly, issued communication dated 24-11-2003 to the petitioner. 7. Petitioner contends that on the State Level Committee of the 1 st respondent taking the decision to withdraw the benefit of Sales Tax incentives in the form of tax exemption/deferment, had called upon the petitioner Unit to pay tax to the 2 nd respondent w.e.f. 01-04-2000. 8. Petitioner further contends that, in the meantime, one of the aggrieved industry, which was also granted similar incentives in terms of G.O.Ms.No.117 dated 17-03-1993, had carried the matter to the Hon’ble Apex Court; that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vadilal Chemicals Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others , [ (2005) 6 SCC 292 ] , on due consideration has held that the Department of Industries and Commerce having granted final eligibility certificate after due consideration, the Commercial Tax Department cannot go beyond the same and restrained the State from enforcing the demand raised by the respondent authorities. 9. Petitioner further contends that the Hon’ble Apex Court was also pleased to hold that the expression “manufacture” should be construed widely so as to include any processing of the goods, and accordingly, directed that taxes shall not be collected from the Assessee for the period for which eligibility certificate was granted and interdicted the respondent-Commercial Tax Department from enforcing the demand upto 31-03-2000. 10. Petitioner further contends that while the position to pay tax has been settled on account of aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, thereby the petitioner being liable to pay tax w.e.f. 01-04-2000, the respondent authorities have issued order dated 31-07-2006 levying interest in a sum of Rs.1,93,48,638/- and Rs.16,46,792/- for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 respectively, on the ground that the tax relatable to said Assessment Years had not been paid by the petitioner. 11. It is further contended that, aggrieved by the aforesaid demand notices issued, the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal provided under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) unsuccessfully. 12. 11. It is further contended that, aggrieved by the aforesaid demand notices issued, the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal provided under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short ‘the Act’) unsuccessfully. 12. Petitioner further contends that insofar as the demand of tax is concerned, the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal provided under the Act and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) had allowed the appeals filed by it; that aggrieved by the STAT allowing the appeals filed by the petitioner for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the respondent-State had preferred revisions before this Court vide T.R.C. Nos.10, 13 and 14 of 2010; and that this Court having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vadilal Chemicals Limited (supra) , had held that the Commissioner of Industries having issued Circular cancelling the eligibility certificate on 17-03-2000, the cancellation of temporary/final eligibility certificates to industries can only be given prospective effect, and accordingly, dismissed the Revisions filed by the State. 13. It is the further contention of the petitioner that as per the orders of the Apex Court and also the order of this Court in T.R.C. Nos.10, 13 and 14 of 2010 inasmuch as no tax can be levied upto 30-03-2000, the respondent authorities cannot seek the demand interest for the assessment year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. 14. It is also contended by the petitioner that as per Incentive Scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to collect sales tax on its sales and as such, the authorities cannot claim of petitioner not having paid tax on due date at the relevant point of time and thus, is not liable to pay interest on non-existing tax liability. 15. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that in respect of petitioner’s 2 units, viz., the Unit at Kakinada, East Godavari District was granted the benefit of sales tax deferment for a period of 10 years while the Unit a Bibinagar, Nalgonda District was granted sales tax exemption. 16. 15. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that in respect of petitioner’s 2 units, viz., the Unit at Kakinada, East Godavari District was granted the benefit of sales tax deferment for a period of 10 years while the Unit a Bibinagar, Nalgonda District was granted sales tax exemption. 16. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that under the Industrial Incentive Policy of the State, it is only in respect of Unit which has been granted sales tax exemption, the assessee is precluded from collecting sales tax on its sales, while in respect of a Unit which is granted incentive in the form of sales tax deferment, the Unit is permitted to collect sales tax, however, is not required to pay the said tax collected to the Government as the said amount is treated as interest-free loan given to the Unit. 17. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioner having filed separate appeals against the proceeding under which the interest has been demanded before the First Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19 of the Act, on dismissal of the said appeals, did not choose to avail the remedy of further appeal before the Tribunal and thus, the proceeding, by which the demand of interest made on petitioner having merged with the orders of the appellate authority, have attained finality. 18. Learned Standing Counsel would also contend that since, the petitioner was availing the benefit of tax exemption as well as deferment in respect of its two units, the petitioner is not entitled to claim it not having collected tax from its customers for paying the same to the State on withdrawal of exemption. 19. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 20. Though, the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, had claimed of it availing the benefit of sales tax holiday i.e. exemption, a perusal of the eligibility certificates dated 30-09-1996 and 12-12-1996 issued in respect of its Kakinada, East Godavari Unit and Bininagar, Nalgonda District Unit respectively would show that Kakinada Unit was granted eligibility certificate for sales tax deferment for a period of 10 years, while the Unit at Bibinagar, Nalgonda District was granted with eligibility certificate of sales tax exemption for a period of 7 years. 21. 21. Further, as per the Industrial Incentive Policy and the Government Orders under which benefit of sales tax deferment and exemption are granted, would show that wherever the sales tax incentive in the form of deferment is granted, there is no restriction as to collection of tax on its sales. On the other hand, the scheme of deferment of tax provides for deferring the tax payable on such sales during the period of first 10 years enabling the Unit enjoy such benefit to plough back the tax amount payable, being provided as a tax-free loan by the State to the said Unit. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that it was restricted from collecting sales tax on its sales at least in respect of its Kakinanda Unit, cannot be accepted as valid claim. 22. Insofar as the demand of interest in respect of tax payable for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 is concerned, since, the Hon’ble Apex Court having held that the Unit having been granted eligibility certificates to avail incentives, cancellation of the same by issuing circular on 17-03-2000 can only be given prospective effect i.e. only from 31-03-2000, the necessary corollary of the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court would 1 0 mean that there would be no liability to pay sales tax upto 30-03-2000. 23. It is to be noted that if there is no liability to pay sales tax by the Units upto 30-03-2000, it cannot be said that there is a default in making such payment attracting liability to pay interest thereon. 24. Further, this Court in the TRCs filed by the State against the orders of assessment for the assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 having held that the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of sales tax concessions under various Government Orders during the period prior to cancellation of eligibility certificate issued by the Commissioner of Industries, the demand of interest for the year 1999-2000, in the considered view of this Court, would be wholly unjustifiable for it to be sustained. 25. 25. Though, it is contended by the learned Special Standing Counsel that the petitioner having filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority and the said appeal being dismissed, the petitioner not having filed further appeal there against or challenge the said order in any form, and thereby the said order attaining finality, it is to be noted that consequent to the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal in T.A.No.1002/2004 allowing the appeal of the petitioner for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the Revision filed before this Court by the State vide TRC No.14 of 2010 having been dismissed, mere non-filing of further appeal by the petitioner against the order of first Appellate authority against the proceeding levying interest cannot be held to have attained finality for the respondent-State to claim that the petitioner being liable to pay the said amount when there is no payment of tax at all. 26. Insofar as the demand of interest for the assessment year 2000-01 is concerned, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vadilal Chemicals Limited (supra) having directed the State to inform the dealer that they would be required to pay tax w.e.f. 31-03-2000 as the eligibility certificates granted by the Commissioner of Industries having been cancelled vide Circular dated 17-03-2000, the petitioner cannot claim of it not being liable to pay tax on its sales on the due date as prescribed under the Act by filing A-2 returns. 27. Since, the petitioner did not make the payment of sale tax when due as per the provisions of the Act, the liability to pay interest is automatic. 28. Further, insofar as the demand of interest made by the Assessing Authority vide proceedings dated 05-12-2003 is concerned, since, the petitioner had availed the remedy of appeal and the said appeal having been dismissed on 15-05-2006, without availing further remedy provided under the Act, the order of the appellate authority to the extent of Assessment Year 2000-01 had attained finality. 29. Since the petitioner, in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court having become liable to pay tax on its sales w.e.f. 31-03-2000, and admittedly having not paid the tax in time under the Act, cannot absolve itself from paying interest as per the provisions of the Act. 30. 29. Since the petitioner, in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court having become liable to pay tax on its sales w.e.f. 31-03-2000, and admittedly having not paid the tax in time under the Act, cannot absolve itself from paying interest as per the provisions of the Act. 30. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, while is not liable to pay interest for the assessment year 1999-2000/APGST, however, is liable to pay interest on the sales tax payable during the assessment year 2000-01/APGST and not paid on the due dates specified therein. Thus, the challenge to demand of interest for the year 2000-01 has to fail. 31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein. No costs. 32. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.