Order.- This petition has been filed to quash the order dated 20th April, 1963, of the Entertainment Tax Officer, Madurai VII, calling upon the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs. 21,539-32 being the balance of tax due and payable by the petitioner in respect of the period from 30th April, 1961 to 24th September, 1962. The petitioner is the lessee of the Imperial Cinema, Madurai. He is the holder of a permit in Form IV, issued under rule 21 of the Madras Entertainment Tax Rules. He was filing returns as required by the provisions of the Madras Entertainment Act, 1939. The returns were accepted, taxes levied and also collected from him by the departmental authorities. While so, during a surprise inspection of the theatre at 10-40 p.m. on 25th September, 1962, the departmental officers seized records such as pocket notebooks, note-books, diary etc. from the theatre premises. The Officer found from these records that the petitioner had suppressed the true income by sale of tickets during the relevant period. Accordingly, the Officer concerned issued notice calling upon the petitioner to explain the various irregularities, as found in the records seized from him. The petitioner submitted his explanation. The Department accepted his explanation in regard to some of the items, and finally concluded that a sum of Rs. 21,529-32 was still due from the petitioner, and accordingly issued the notice of assessment and demand dated 30th April, 1963, calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within 21 days from the date of service of the notice and also intimating the petitioner that failing which the amount would be recovered as provided in section 14 of the Act. In these circumstances, the petitioner has rushed to this Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the order dated 30th April, 1963. In this writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that he is not to be assessed to entertainment tax on the basis of the whole gross collections, that the Rules do not provide for the normal safeguards for the protection of the records seized by the Officers, and that the Department having accepted the returns submitted by him and levied tax and also collected them, there is no scope for proceeding to make the assessment on best judgment basis. The contention of the Department is that the petitioner ought to nave availed himself of the remedy by way of appeal as provided in the Act, that the petitioner did not keep true and proper accounts during the relevant period but was keeping secret accounts which were unearthed at the time of the inspection and (hat though returns were submitted they were neither correct nor complete and as such the provisions of rule 26-A (best judgment assessment) are clearly attracted to the facts of the case. For a proper disposal of this writ petition, it is necessary for me to trace the history in detail of this entertainment tax which has come into existence in the State from 1927. For the first time, the Madras Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act (V of 1927), was passed, and the charging section, section 5, provided that the entertainment tax shall be charged in respect of each person admitted for payment, and, in case of admission by stamped ticket shall be paid by means of stamp on the ticket and in the case of admissions otherwise than by stamped ticket shall be calculated and paid on the number of admissions. This Act was repealed by the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (X of 1939). It provided for levy of entertainment tax in respect of each person admitted on payment and should be calculated and paid on the number of admissions. The Rules framed under the Act provided for the keeping of true and correct accounts and submission of returns in the manner specified in the permit in Form IV. In the year 1952, the Amending Act V of 1952 was passed. Section 7-A introduced by the Amending Act provided, for the first time, for the submission of returns relating to payments for admission, to such authority, in such manner and within such periods as may be prescribed. The return should be in Form II and should contain the price of admission, serial number of tickets issued, number of tickets sold, number of free passes issued, amount received on account of tickets sold and the amount of entertainment tax. If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any returns submitted is correct and completed, it shallassess the proprietor on the basis thereof. If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any returns submitted is correct and completed, it shallassess the proprietor on the basis thereof. Section 7-A (3) provides that if no return is submitted by the proprietor of the entertainment or if the return submitted by him appears to be incorrect or incomplete, the prescribed authority shall, after making such inquiry as it considers it necessary, determine the tax due under section 4 or 4-A or under both the sections and assess the proprietor to the best of its judgment. Rule 26-A is to the similar effect. Clause (4) of Form IV mentioned in rule 26-A says that a return giving the totals in respect of the particulars in Form II appended to the Madras Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939, for all performances during the week from Monday to Sunday (both days inclusive) shall be sent so as to reach the office of the Entertainments Tax Officer on the Tuesday immediately following at the latest This in brief is the history of the legislation relating to entertainments tax. It is common case for both the petitioner and the respondent-officer that during the relevant period, the petitioner submitted returns as per the Rules. His returns were accepted, tax levied and also collected by the authorities from the petitioner herein. As stated already, if the authorities are not satisfied with the returns submitted, on the ground that they are incorrect or incomplete, then they should make an enquiry and determine the tax due under section 4 or 4-A of the Act, to the best of his judgment. I fail to see how the officers, after accepting the returns, levying the tax and collecting it, can say that the returns submitted to them are incorrect and incomplete. The Officers, in such a case as the present one, cannot resort to the procedure of best judgment. The only other provision or procedure that can be adopted is to assess the petitioner on the basis of escaped turnover or income. That will give rise to the question as to whether there is any provision in this statute to assess the petitioner for escaped income or turnover. “ Escaped income” in the taxing statute is a phrase familiar to the taxing authorities, well-conversant with legal draftsman, and very notorious with the assessees on account of the dubious methods adopted by them in the suppression of real income. “ Escaped income” in the taxing statute is a phrase familiar to the taxing authorities, well-conversant with legal draftsman, and very notorious with the assessees on account of the dubious methods adopted by them in the suppression of real income. Other taxation laws provide for assessment of escaped income or turnover. For instance section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939, and rule 17 of the Rules made under that Act provide for assessment of any turnover which has escaped assessment. Section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 deals with escaped assessment. Similarly section 35 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act provides for escaped assessment. Again the Indian Income-tax Act, by section 34 of the 1922 Act and section 147 of the 196 Act provides for income escaping assessment. Thus, in all these statutes there is provision for assessment or re-assessment as the case may be. But curiously, ever since the Entertainments Act has been enacted, there is no provision made for assessment of escaped income or turnover with the result a person like the present petitioner can escape paying the amount of tax legally due and payable by him. The petitioner will be following the well-known principle in the taxing statute, viz., that an assessee can avoid the tax but not evade the tax. In Kamalammal v. Board of Revenue1, weekly returns were filed under section 7-A of the Madras Entertainments Tax Act. All of them were accumulated and a consolidated single assessment was made on the best of judgment basis, on the ground that certain defects were noticed at an inspection and there was material that some of the returns were defective. Srinivasan, J. held that the procedure adopted was illegal, and that section 7-A and the Rules would go to show that each return was. independent of the rest and had to be assessed separately from the rest. In this case weekly returns were filed, accepted, tax levied and also collected from the petitioner. When such is the case, the petitioner cannot be called all of a sudden, may be after inspection, to pay accumulated tax, on the materials alleged to have been unearthed during a search of the premises. Unless the statute is amended, the taxing authorities will have no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner to pay tax on escaped income or escaped turnover. Unless the statute is amended, the taxing authorities will have no jurisdiction to call upon the petitioner to pay tax on escaped income or escaped turnover. The result is the petitioner succeeds and the rule is made absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs. K.S. ----- Petition allowed.