Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the licensee of Pamba Talkies within the jurisdiction on the respondent-Panchayat. He took stamped tickets as contemplated by the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act of 1961 and remitted the tax as well. Subsequently, the Executive Officer of the panchayat happened to know that the returns submitted by the petitioner to the several film distributors who sent films to him for exhibition showed higher figures regarding the persons who witnessed the films and the number of shows held than the figures shown in returns submitted by him to the panchayat. The Executive Officer then suspected that there was fraud and also large-scale evasion of tax. He issued Ex. P1 to the petitioner asking him to produce office copies of the return he submitted to the several film distributors for comparison with the returns submitted to the panchayat with a view to re-assess the petitioner for escaped tax. The petitioner's agent produced some copies relating to some period and stated that records relating to the rest of the period were not available. On the basis of the records produced the Executive Officer assessed the petitioner for escaped tax for the period from 12th February to 18th June 1968; and for the rest of the period for which records were not available, he assessed him on an arbitrary basis a best-of judgment assessment. Fairly large amounts were found due from the petitioner; and the Executive Officer issued Ex. P2asking the petitioner to show cause against the assessments and also against the realisation of the amounts assessed. The petitioner seeks to quash Exx. P1 and P2. 2. The argument of the counsel of the petitioner is that under the Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act the Executive Officer or the panchayat had no power to assess him, much less re-assess him, as attempted by Exx. P1 and P2. The counsel argues further that since the panchayat had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner, the petitioner can approch this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and get the unauthorised proposed assessments quashed without raising his objections before the Executive Officer or filing an appeal against his decision to the panchayat. 3. The Executive Officer has filed a counter affidavit. The counsel argues further that since the panchayat had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner, the petitioner can approch this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and get the unauthorised proposed assessments quashed without raising his objections before the Executive Officer or filing an appeal against his decision to the panchayat. 3. The Executive Officer has filed a counter affidavit. His contentions are that the writ petition is premature since the petitioner may raise his objections before the Executive Officer himself and also before the appropriate authority by way of appeal; and that the panchayat has jurisdiction under the Entertainments Tax Act or under the Kerala Panchayats Act to assess and collect tax as the Executive Officer has proposed under Exx. P1 and P2. 4. The counsel of the petitioner draws my attention to some of the provisions in the Entertainments Tax Act. Under S.3 of the Act levy of entertainments tax is on each payment for admission to any entertainment. S.4 provides for a composition and consolidated payment of the tax by a proprietor to a local authority: and in that case there is no further restriction on admission to the entertainment by the proprietor thereof. S.5 then deals with three modes of admission to entertainments. In clause (a) of sub-section (I) admission is on tickets stamped with impressed, embossed, engraved or adhesive stamps issued by the local authority indicating the tax. Clause (b) of the sub-section provides for the installation of a barrier or a mechanical contrivance, which automatically registers the number of persons admitted. Yet there is another method provided by the last portion of sub-section (1), wherein the provision is that the proprietor of an entertainment may make arrangements approved by the local authority for furnishing returns of payments for admission to the entertainment and can also give security approved by the local authority for the payment of the tax. S.6 provides for the manner of payment of the tax. Sub-section (1) says that the tax shall be levied in respect of each person admitted for payment; and in the case of admission by ticket, the tax is collected on the ticket, and in the case of admission otherwise than by ticket, the tax is calculated and paid on the number of admissions. Then comes sub-section (2), which may be extracted since an argument based on this sub-section has to be considered later. Then comes sub-section (2), which may be extracted since an argument based on this sub-section has to be considered later. Sub-section (2) reads: "The entertainments tax in the case of admission other wise than by ticket shall be recoverable from the proprietor." Two other sections to be noted are S.9 and 10. S.9 empowers a local authority to send its authorised officer to a place of entertainment while the entertainment is in progress; and such officer may enter the place to see whether the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act or the Rules made thereunder are being complied with. The proprietor of the entertainment cannot prevent such officer entering the premises; and such officer is a public servant within the meaning of S.21 of the Indian Penal Code. S.10 provides the penalty for non-compliance with S.S; and any proprietor of an entertainment, who admits a person to the entertainment in contravention of the provisions of S.6, is liable to conviction and fine. The section also confers powers on the officer to prevent the further use of the place for the purpose of any entertainment in certain circumstances; and the officer is even entitled to call for police aid to prevent such use. These are all the provisions in the Act which relate to levy and collection of tax and to punishment for failure to observe the provisions of the Act. The Kerala Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Rules have also been framed by the Government to carry out the purposes of the Act. 5. No specific provision has been brought to my notice by the counsel of the respondent authorising a local authority to assess entertainments tax, as the panchayat has now done in a case where the levy was by the issue of stamped tickets. It is a well-established principle of law that an authority can impose and collect tax only if it has power conferred on it by some statute; and if the statute under which such power is claimed does not have specific provisions authorising the authority to levy and collect tax, the authority cannot have any implied power to collect any tax. I do not think this well-established principle can be disputed. At any rate, I may refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court, where this principle has been reaffirmed. In The State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate (AIR. 1966 SC. I do not think this well-established principle can be disputed. At any rate, I may refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court, where this principle has been reaffirmed. In The State of Punjab v. M/s. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate (AIR. 1966 SC. 1295) Subba Rao J. has said: "It is settled rule of construction that in interpreting a fiscal statute the Court cannot proceed to make good the deficiencies, if there be any, in the statute; it shall interpret the statute as it stands and in case of doubt, it shall interpret it in a manner favourable to the tax payer: In considering a taxing Act, the Court is not justified in straining the language in order to hold a subject liable to tax". The same learned judge has expressed himself in The Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. M/s. Bhahzada Nand and Sons (AIR. 1966 SC. 1342) in the same terms. In Para.8 of the judgment Subba Rao J. has quoted the following classic statement of Rowlatt J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commrs (1921) 1 KB. 64): 'In a Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." Subba Rao J. has himself added to this as a rider: "In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted." Therefore, there is no reason for any doubt that unless there is a specific provision in the Entertainments Tax Act, the panchayat cannot assess or re-assess the petitioner as the panchayat has now done. The only manner the panchayat could have met the fraud, if there was fraud, was to have sent its officer to the premises taking power under S.9 of the Act and to have prosecuted the proprietor of the entertainment (the petitioner) as contemplated by S.10. The panchayat has no power to re-assess the proprietor for escaped tax, as there is no provision in the Act giving such power to the panchayat. If that is a lacuna in the Act, the lacuna cannot be remedied by giving a wider or an equitable interpretation. The panchayat has no power to re-assess the proprietor for escaped tax, as there is no provision in the Act giving such power to the panchayat. If that is a lacuna in the Act, the lacuna cannot be remedied by giving a wider or an equitable interpretation. In my opinion, there is no lacuna either, because the legislature appears to have intended only what has been provided in the sections referred to by me. I may also add that the panchayat being a statutory authority created by the Panchayats Act, it must find all its powers within the four walls of that Act: and no provision for assessing entertainments tax is found in that Act either. The first argument of the counsel of the panchayat on this aspect of the case is that under S.6(2) of the Entertainments Tax Act (already extracted) the tax in the case of admission otherwise than by ticket is recoverable from the proprietor: the present case being one of recovery of tax in a case of admission otherwise than by ticket, the tax can be recovered from the proprietor. Firstly, this sub-section has to be read and interpreted in the context of S.6. Subsection (1) of the section provides for payment of tax by means of tickets; and sub-section (2) in the context means that in cases where admission is otherwise than by tickets the tax has to be recovered from the proprietor in contrast with the recovery of the tax from the purchasers of the tickets as contemplated by sub-section (1). Secondly, sub-section (2) deals with the recovery of the tax and not with its assessment. Therefore, this sub-section cannot enable the panchayat to assess or re-assess the petitioner to tax. 6. The scheme of the Entertainments Tax Act regarding the levy and collection of tax appears to be this: If a composition is made under S.4, the amount agreed upon by the parties can alone be collected, and no question of any restriction on admissions can arise on the part of the local authority. The proprietor of an entertainment can also make arrangements approved by the local authority for furnishing returns of payments for admission under the latter part of S.3(1); and in such a case tax has to be paid on the returns showing the payments for admission. The proprietor of an entertainment can also make arrangements approved by the local authority for furnishing returns of payments for admission under the latter part of S.3(1); and in such a case tax has to be paid on the returns showing the payments for admission. The other two methods are found in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-s. (1) of sub-section 5 by the issue of stamped tickets, the number of tickets sold being the criterion, and by getting the number of persons admitted through a barrier or by means of a mechanical contrivance which automatically registers the number. In the last three cases (barring the first case of composition of tax), the mode of enforcing compliance of the provisions of S.6 is by means of the provisions of S.9 and 10. 7. The next argument of the counsel of the panchayat on this aspect is based on sub-section (1) of S.8 of the Entertainments Tax Act. This sub-section says that any amount due on account of entertainments tax may be recovered by the local authority in the same manner as any tax payable to the local authority. The argument is that the panchayat has power to assess and recover entertainments tax in the same manner as any other tax payable to it on any other account. The counsel draws my attention to the Kerala Panchayats (Taxation and Appeal) Rules of 1963 providing for the levy of tax by a panchayat, for a right of appeal against such levy, for the collection of the tax, etc. According to the counsel, these provisions in the Taxation and Appeal Rules apply to entertainments tax as well. The argument sounds puerile. What is contemplated by sub-section (1) of S.8 of the Entertainments Tax Act is only the collection of the tax, the recovery of the tax, and not the assessment thereof. The Taxation and Appeal Rules provide not only for the collection or recovery of tax, but they provide for the assessment of tax as well. Evidently, those rules in the Taxation and Appeal Rules which deal with assessment of tax cannot be applied to assessment of entertainments tax under the Entertainments Tax Act and can be applied only to taxes provided by the Panchayats Act. If at all, only such of the rules which apply to collection or recovery of tax alone can be applied to recovery of entertainments tax. 8. If at all, only such of the rules which apply to collection or recovery of tax alone can be applied to recovery of entertainments tax. 8. Lastly it is urged by the counsel of the panchayat on the other question, namely, the writ petition is premature, that the petitioner should raise his objections before the panchayat and should also appeal to the appropriate authority before he approaches this Court. This argument is again against an equally well-settled principle. If an authority attempts to do an act which it has no jurisdiction to do, say, issues a notice, passes an order, starts a proceeding, etc., the party affected by the act need not raise his objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the authority before the authority itself, take a decision by it on the question and file an appeal against that to an appellate authority, if one exists, before it resorts to the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. This will involve unnecessary and avoidable delay; and it is also unnecessary in a case of complete lack of jurisdiction. The party can come to this Court and satisfy this Court that the notice, order, proceeding, etc., the action taken by the authority, is without jurisdiction; and if this Court is satisfied that the authority has no jurisdiction, the action will be set at naught too. 9. For the above reasons, it is clear that the "action of the panchayat in attempting to assess the petitioner as proposed by Exx. P1 and P2 is without jurisdiction and illegal. It is possible (I am not sure, for the petitioner's counsel suggests that the figures in the returns submitted by the petitioner to the film distributors were deliberately inflated for boosting the popularity of the films) that some fraud might have been committed in the matter of payment of entertainments tax by the petitioner. But, the Executive Officer and the panchayat should have been alert and moved under S.9 and 10. If they were not diligent in their work at the proper time, they have only to thank themselves; and they cannot have their mistake remedied in this manner. 10. The writ petition is allowed and Exx. P1 and P2 are quashed. However, I do not pass any order regarding costs. Allowed.