ORDER : (T. Vinod Kumar, J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that it was assessed to tax by the 1 st respondent for the assessment year 2001-02 under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( for short ‘the Act’) vide Assessment Order dated 10-03-2005 determining the tax payable in a sum of Rs.96,15,08,110/- and after giving credit to the tax paid by the petitioner in a sum of Rs.94,90,83,353/-, had issued demand notice in form B-3 for balance tax of Rs.1,24,24,757/-. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that since the aforesaid order of assessment did not give credit to the amounts of tax paid by the petitioner on 18-07-2002 in a sum of Rs.89,75,585/-, the 1 st respondent authority exercising power under Rule 50 of the APGST Rules had issued rectification of assessment order dated 07-04-2005 giving credit to the aforesaid amounts paid resulting in reduction of balance tax payable in a sum of Rs.34,49,172/-. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the 1 st respondent authority issuing the rectification order reducing the balance tax demand, it was issued with proceedings dated 29-05-2006 levying interest in a sum of Rs.43,74,102/- for a period of 3 months 11 days @ 30% p.a. on the payment of Rs.89,75,585/- and interest amounting to Rs.7,52,474/- and for 2 years 11 months @ 36% p.a. amounting to Rs.36,21,628/-. 5. Petitioner further contends that the 1 st respondent adopted the rate of interest as prescribed under Section 16(3) of the Act that prevailed prior to 12-01-2005 even though the said rate was substituted by Act No.2 of 2005 with uniform rate of 12% per annum. 6. Petitioner further contends that the Act was repealed and in its place Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (for short ‘VAT Act’) has come into force w.e.f. 01-04-2005 and even under the VAT Act, the rate of interest is specified as 1% per month under Section 22(2) of the VAT Act, which works out to 12% p.a. and as such, the impugned order dated 29-05-2006 passed by the 1 st respondent is without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice. 7. Counter-affidavit on behalf of 1 st respondent is filed. 8. 7. Counter-affidavit on behalf of 1 st respondent is filed. 8. By the counter-affidavit, it is contended that the Assessment period involved is 2001-02 of the Act and rate of interest prevalent at the relevant point of time is prescribed under Section 16(3)(a) of the Act ranging from 18% p.a. to 36% p.a. for the period of delay. 9. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that the rate of interest was amended as per Act 2 of 2005 to 12% p.a. w.e.f. 12-01-2005 to 31-03-2005. 10. It is further also contended that though, the proceedings for levy of interest are initiated in the year 2006, the rate of interest applicable would be the rate as existing during the relevant period i.e. 2001-02, but not the rate of interest as applicable on the date on which the proceedings have been initiated. 11. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that since, the petitioner had made payment of Rs.89,75,585/- on 18-07-2002, the interest has been calculated only for the period of delay in making payment after the end of the assessment year 2001-02 viz., April to March. 12. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that since, the petitioner did not make the balance payment of Rs.34,49,172/-, the 1 st respondent authority had levied interest at the maximum prescribed under Section 16(3)(a) of the Act. 13. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that since, the tax due relates to the period 2001-02, the petitioner cannot claim the interest @ 12% p.a. as introduced by Act 2 of 2005 which would be applicable only in relation to tax dues for the period 12-01-2005 to 31-03-205 on which date the Act was repealed and in its place the VAT Act has been introduced w.e.f. 01-04-2005. 14. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that though, the petitioner had claimed that on certain amounts received by it, it is not liable to pay tax, inasmuch as the said order of assessment had not been assailed by the petitioner in appeal or in any other forum, the order of assessment had attained finality, and thus, the interest levied on the demand as prescribed in the assessment order on net tax payable is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 15. 15. By the counter-affidavit, it is also contended that though, the petitioner had claimed of it not being given credit for payment of tax on Rs.3,83,643/- inasmuch as the petitioner did not furnish any details of such payment, the credit for the said amount could not be given by the authorities by exercising power under Rule 50 of the Rules. 16. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents also deny the contention of the petitioner that it is entitled to interest on the advance tax paid of Rs.7.00 crores on 28-03-2002, as there is no such provision under the Act. 17. The respondents by stating as above, had contended that the levy of interest on the petitioner for the year 2001-02 is in accordance with the provision of Section 16(3)(a) of the Act as in force during the assessment year 2001-02. 18. We have taken note of respective contentions urged. 19. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present Writ Petition, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 13, 16(3)(a) of the Act r/w rule 17(1) of the Rules. 20. Section 13 of the Act deals with submission of return of turnover by dealer. 21. Section 17(1) of the Rules deals with submission of return by every dealer in Form A-2 every month showing total and net turnover of the preceding month. The said Rule also prescribes that along with the return, the dealer shall submit a receipt from the Government Treasury or a crossed demand draft in favour of the assessing authority for the full amount of tax or taxes payable for the month to which the return relates to. 22. Section 16 of the Act deals with payment of tax and other dues payable under the Act. 22. Section 16 of the Act deals with payment of tax and other dues payable under the Act. Sub-Section (3) thereof states that if the tax assessed or penalty levied or any other amount due under this Act (underlying supplied by Court) or any installment thereof is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time specified thereof in the notice of demand, or in the order permitting the payment in installments or in any other provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, the dealer or other person, shall pay in addition to the amount of such tax, penalty, installment or any other amount, interest calculated per every one hundred rupees or part thereof at the rates mentioned below for the period of delay from the due date or date specified for its payments. 23. A reading of Section 16(3)(a) of the Act, which was in force during the year 2001-02 if read along with Section 13 of the Act and Rule 17(1) of the Rules requires the petitioner to make payment of the tax on the due date specified for its payment, which as per Rule 17(1) of the Rules is 20 th of the succeeding month along with return in Form A-2. 24. Since, the tax paid by the petitioner along with its return is less than its liability, which it is required to discharge by enclosing Treasury challan or crossed Demand Draft in favour of the assessing authority, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest in terms of Section 16(3)(a) of the Act. 25. Though, on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the interest rate prescribed under the aforesaid Section having been substituted by Act 2 of 2005 w.e.f.12-01-2005, it is to be noted that since the amendment is to the Act, the same would only have prospective effect and cannot be given retrospective effect by considering the same as procedural in nature. 26. Further, the claim of the petitioner of the assessing authority having made assessment only on 10-03-2005 and issuing notice of demand in Form B-3, the interest cannot be demanded for earlier period, as noted herein above, the liability to pay interest would arise if the tax due as per the return is not paid before the due date specified for such payment. Since, the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act, is required to pay taxes along with returns before the 20 th day of every succeeding month, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on the delayed payments. 27. However, in the facts of the present case, though, the petitioner had claimed certain exemptions which were disallowed by the Assessing Authority while passing final assessment order dated 10-03-2005 resulting in additional demand being raised on the petitioner on account of disallowance of certain claims made by the petitioner while filing return on its due date, the petitioner cannot take advantage of making such claims and not pursue such claims on assessment order being passed thereby resulting in the said order attaining finality. 28. The consequence of the order of assessment attaining finality would automatically result in petitioner being liable to pay interest for wrong claims made by it while filing return in order to minimize/reduce its tax liability for relevant month and to claim that the additional payment of tax if any raised would be paid on completion of assessment. If the said plea urged by the petitioner is accepted, in every case, a dealer while filing monthly A-2 return would make wrong claims without paying any tax or only paying minimal tax thereby postpone the payment of tax legitimately due to a later date i.e. completion of assessment by passing an order. 29. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner of it not being liable to pay interest till the assessment order is passed or it being liable to pay interest only at the rate which is in force on the date of passing of assessment order or issuing notice of demand for payment of interest, is devoid of merit. 30. Thus, the Writ Petition as filed fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.