( 1 ) THE petitioners in this ba,tch of writ petitions are the owners of Cinema theatres situate in the town of Gangavathi. The Asst. Commercial Tax officer, Gangavathi, has passed the impugned orders for different periods assessing additional tax payable under S. 4 of the Mysore Entertainments tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and making demands of various amounts after giving due deductions to the tax already paid by the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE contention of Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that Rule 39 of the Mysore Entertainments tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules') and the Schedule are ultra vires the Act and that, therefore the impugned orders made on the basis of the aforesaid Rules are illegal and invalid. ( 3 ) SECTION 4 of the Act reads as follows : ( 4 ) ADDITIONAL tax on cinematograph shows In the case of cinematograph shows, in addition to the tax and the surcharge leviable under Ss. 3 and 3a, there shall be levied and paid to the State government's entertainments tax calculated at the following rates namely : shows "rates of tax" per show (i) 'held in the City of Bangalore : (a) in Class I Theatres "ten rupees" (b) in Theatres other than "class I Theatres Five rupees ' (ii) held in cities or towns with a population of fifty thousand and above "five rupees" (iii) held in places with a population of twenty thousand and above but less than fifty thousand three rupees (iv) held in other places "two rupees" explanation-For purposes of this section,- (a) ' Population' means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures are published; (b) ' Class I Theatre' means a theatre in which the rate of payment (including the amount of tax and surcharge) for admission of an adult to the highest class of seat or accommodation is not less than two rushes and fifty paise. It is clear from S. 4 that the rate of additional tax per show is Rs. 3 if the cinematographs are exhibited in a place with a population of twenty thousand and above, but less than fifty thousand and that if the population, is less than twenty thousand, the rate of additional tax per show is Rs. 2. It is clear from S. 4 that the rate of additional tax per show is Rs. 3 if the cinematographs are exhibited in a place with a population of twenty thousand and above, but less than fifty thousand and that if the population, is less than twenty thousand, the rate of additional tax per show is Rs. 2. For the purpose of S. 4, there is a special definition of the expression population given in the explanation to the said section. According to the said definition, 'population' means population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures are published. It is clear from a reading of S. 4 that it is a self-contained Code, in that, it prescribes the rate of tax, the basis of taxation as well as the method of ascertaining the population. The population has to be ascertained from the latest published census figures. It is averred by the petitioners in these writ petitions that according to the published figures of 1961 census, the population of Gangavathi town is 19. 026. It is not disputed that for the periods with which we are concerned, the latest census figures published are the census figures of the year 1961. As the population of Gangavathi town is less than twenty thousand, additional tax on Cinematograph that could be collected from the petitioners is at the rate of rupees two per show. But, by the impugned orders, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi, has assessed tax at the rate of rupees three per show, applying rule 39 of the Rules read with the Schedule. Rule 39 of the Rules reads :"39. The percentage to be adopted for determining the population of any city, town or other place for the levy of additional tax on cinematograph shows under S. 4 shall be the percentage given against the city, town or other place concerned in the Schedule annexed to these rules. "the Schedule to the rules enumerates the different places at SI. Nos. 1. to 27. The town of Gangayathi is not one of the towns listed in the Schedule s1. No. 28 provides for all other places. The Schedule gives the percentage of annual increase which is required to be added to the latest available census figures for the purpose of ascertaining the population for levy of additional entertainment tax under S. 4. to 27. The town of Gangayathi is not one of the towns listed in the Schedule s1. No. 28 provides for all other places. The Schedule gives the percentage of annual increase which is required to be added to the latest available census figures for the purpose of ascertaining the population for levy of additional entertainment tax under S. 4. In respect of all other places sl. No. 28 of the Schedule provides that the percentage of annual increase is 1. 43. If the percentage of annual increase at the rate of 1. 43 as provided by Rule 39 read with the Schedule is added to the population 19,026 the population of Gangavathi town would be more than twenty thousand for the relevant periods for which the impugned orders of assessment have been made by the Asst Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi. If rule 39 read with Schedule are valid, the basis adopted by the Asst. Commercial tax Officer, Gangavathi, for levying tax at the rate of Rs. 3, would be legal and proper. 4. The question for consideration, therefore, is as to whether Rule 39 and the' Schedule to the rules are ultra vires the Act as contended by sri Srinivasan. ( 5 ) S. 18 of the Act, confers rule making power on the State Government subject to the condition of previous publication, to carry out the purposes of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 18 enumerates specific items in respect of which, rules can be made by the State Government. None of these items provides for making of a rule for the purpose of determining the population or for the purpose of adding any percentage to the population ascertainable with reference to the latest published census figures. But it was rightly contended by Shri Chandrakantharaj Urs, learned Government advocate that for carrying out the purpose of the Act, the State government could make rules in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 18 of the Act, particularly, in view of C1. (j), which provides that rules can be made in regard to any other matter for which there is no provision or no sufficient provision in the Act and for which, provision is, in the opinion of the State Government, necessary for giving effect to the purpose of the Act. (j), which provides that rules can be made in regard to any other matter for which there is no provision or no sufficient provision in the Act and for which, provision is, in the opinion of the State Government, necessary for giving effect to the purpose of the Act. ( 6 ) THE contention of Sri Srinivasan is that in exercise of the rule making power under S. 18, the State Government cannot make any rule which will be in conflict with the provisions of the Act. It was contended that Rule 39 and the Schedule to the rules being clearly in conflict with s. 4 of the Act, the same have to be declared as ultra vires. Though subsec. (3) (a) of S. 18 provides that every rule made under the Act shall have effect as if enacted in the Act, it is clear that for a rule to attain the status of a provision in the Act, it must be a rule made under the Act. If a rule is not made under the Act, even by the operation of sub-sec. (3) (a) of S. 18, it cannot have the status of a provision in the Act. If a rule is made, which is clearly in conflict with the provisions of the Act, that rule cannot be regarded as a rule made under the Act. Any rule made under the Act must be consistent with the provisions of the Act and not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. If Sri Srinivasan is right in his contention that eule 39 and the Schedule are in conflict with S. 4 of the, Act then the same cannot be regarded as one made under the Act. ( 7 ) AS in the explanation to S. 4 of the Act, the expression 'population has been denned, only that definition has to be adopted for the purpose of construing Sec. 4 of the Act. According to the definition of the term 'population' as given in Cl. (a) of the explanation, 'population' means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures are published. For the purpose of S. 4, the population of a particular place could only be that which could be ascertained in accorddance with the relevant census figures duly published. (a) of the explanation, 'population' means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures are published. For the purpose of S. 4, the population of a particular place could only be that which could be ascertained in accorddance with the relevant census figures duly published. Until the census figures duly published at one time, are superseded by another set of census figures, published on a later occasion, tile former census figures duly published alone have to be taken into consideration for the purpose cf levying tax under S. 4 of the Act. When that is the clear effect of the Explanation to S. 4, no rule could be made ' by the State Government, which has the effect of taking into consideration, not the population figures of the last preceding census duly published as required by S. 4, but a figure of population arrived at by adding a percentage to the duly publshed census figures of the preceding census. The clear effect of Rule 39 is to take into consideration for the purpose of assessment of tax under Sec. 4, not the figurea of population of the preceding census duly published, but a figure arrived at by adding particular percentage to the said figure. If the intendment was that for the purpose of S. 4, an additional percentage should be added to the figure ascertainable with Reference to the preceding census duly published, one would have found an express provision to that effect in the enactment itself. On the contrary, the language of S. 4 makes it clear that the population for the purpose of S. 4 has to be ascertained in the manner provided by S. 4 itself and not by any other process. As any other mode for ascertainment of population is clearly inconsistent with the method provided in S. 4, Rule 39 and the Schedule cannot be regarded as having been made for carrying out the purpose of the Act. Rule 39 and the Schedule to the Rules being in conflict with S. 4, of the Act the same are ultra vires. ( 8 ) AS Rule 39 and the Schedule to the rules are ultra vires and void, the impugned orders made by the Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi made on the basis of Rule 39 and the Schedule will have to be quashed. ( 8 ) AS Rule 39 and the Schedule to the rules are ultra vires and void, the impugned orders made by the Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi made on the basis of Rule 39 and the Schedule will have to be quashed. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitions are allowed and rule 39 and the Schedule to the Mysore Entertainments Tax Rules, 1959 are declared as void and the orders of demand made by the Asst. Commercial tax Officer, Gangavathi, impugned in each of these cases are hereby quashed. No cost. --- *** --- .