Judgment :- (RAMANUJAM, J.) 1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash certain order of re-assessment dated 31st May 1968, made under the Madras Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by bis order dated 11th April 1972. The petitioner herein was running a cinema theatre by name ‘Everest theatre’ and be was paying entertainment tax as per the provisions of the said Act The theatre was inspected on 5th December 1968 and an exercise note book was seized from the petitioner on that day. On the basis of the entries found in the said exercise note book, which contained entries relating to the collections made from the theatre from 7th May 1960 to 4th December 1963, an order of re assessment was made by the assessing authority on 31st May 1968 for the period from 2nd Jane 1963 to 4th December 1963. 2. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this court, but that petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had already availed of an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. Thereafter, the appellate authority upheld the re-assessment and a further revision before the Deputy-Commissioner (Commercial taxes) the first respondent herein, had also been dismissed on 11th April 1972. 3. In this writ petition, the learned counsel for he petitioner raises two contentions—(1) that the order of re-assessment is legally invalid and that the same cannot also be taken to have been validated by the provisions of Madras Act 20 of 1960 and (2) that there has been no proper enquiry preceding the assessment, and that the petitioner had no reasonable opportunity of putting forward his objections to the assessment. 4. As regards the first contention, it is submitted that S. 7 of the Madras Act 20 of 1960 has been held to be invalid by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Rayappa 1971 S.C. 231 and therefore, S. 7-B which was Introduced by S. 2 of the Madras Act 20 of 1960 in the original Act is inoperative in that the period before which re-assessment could be made had not been prescribed by the rules, as contemplated by that section. 5. To appreciate the above legal contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. 5. To appreciate the above legal contentions, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. It was held earlier by this court that the provisions of the Madras Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, as it originally stood, did not provide for re-assessment. To get over the said judgment, Madras Act 20 of 1960 was enacted and that Act came into force on 1st April 1960. S. 2 of the said Madras Act 20 of 1960 introduced a new section (S. 7-B) in the main Act. The said section enabled the assessing authority to assess, to the best of his judgment, the tax due under S. 4 or 4-A as the case may be, after making such enquiry as it may be considered necessary and after giving reasonable opportunity to show cause against the assessment within such period, as may be prescribed. S. 7 of the Amending Act (Madras Act 20 of 1960) validated the re-assessments made earlier to the commencement of the Act. Though S. 7-B contemplated the prescription of the time limit within which re-assessment has to be made, no rule was, in fact, made fixing the period before which the re-assessment could be made till 4th April 1967, when actually R. 43-B was made, fixing a 5 year limit before which the re-assessment could be made. But, reassessments have been made under S. 7-B of the original Act, after the enactment of Madras Act 20 of 1960, and before the framing of R. 42-B referred to above. The validity of these assessments were challenged before a Division Bench of this court and this court in Rayappa Gounder v. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode 1968 Mad. 274, held that the assessments made under S. 7-B cannot be valid as that provision can be invoked only when the lime limit is prescribed under the rules, that the power to re-assess under S. 7-B cannot be validly exercised unless the limits of the power are determined, and that the limits of such power is determined by fixing a time limit under the rules. It was also held that those assessments made under S. 7-B cannot also be validated by the provisions of S. 7 of the Amending Act. It was also held that those assessments made under S. 7-B cannot also be validated by the provisions of S. 7 of the Amending Act. The matter ultimately went before the Supreme Court and Their Lordships of the Supreme Court agreed with the view expressed by the above decision of this court and held that the power to reassess under S. 7-B introduced by Madras Act 10 of 1960 is incomplete and not exercisable in the absence of prescription as to limitation contemplated by that section, and the S. 7 of the Amending Act also fails to validate the assessments made earlier to the framing of the rule. 6. The learned counsel mainly relies on the said decision of the Supreme Court and contends that in the face of the said judgment holding S. 7 of the Amending Act to He invalid the re-assessment in this case cannot be valid in law. But, in this case, re-assessment has taken place after Rule 43-E has come into force-on 4th April 1967. Therefore, it is rot necessary for the Revenue to reply on the valid ling provisions in S. 7 of the Amending Act. As a matter of fact the learned Government Pleader seeks to sustain the validity of the assessment only under S. 7-B read with Rule 43-E. It is true that S. 7-B of the original Act was held inoperative by this court as well as by the Supreme Court for the reason that no rule prescribing the time limit before which the re-assessment could be made had been framed, as provided in the said section. Now, after the framing of the Rule 43-E. with effect from 4th April 1967, the said S. 7-B can be validly invoked and re-assessments could be validly made. 7. Dealing with the assessments made under S. 7-B, after Rule 43-E has been framed on 4th April 1967, the same Division Bench which had decided the case in Rayappa Gounder v. Commercial Tax Officer, Erode I.L.R. 1968 Mad. 274 upheld their validity in Proprietor of Vadivel Theatre v. Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai I.L.R. 1970-2 Mad. 246 on the ground that S-7-B could not be attracted, applied and implemented, as it was in the statute book from 1st April I960, even though the rule came to be made on a later date. 274 upheld their validity in Proprietor of Vadivel Theatre v. Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai I.L.R. 1970-2 Mad. 246 on the ground that S-7-B could not be attracted, applied and implemented, as it was in the statute book from 1st April I960, even though the rule came to be made on a later date. In view of this decision, the re-assessment in this case which has been made after 4th April 1967, is legally valid. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the petitioner bad no reasonable opportunity to put forward bis objections to the assessment, and that the only material that was available before the assessing officer was the exercise note book, and that no one connected with the entries made in the said note book has been examined in his presence. It is pointed out that the evidence of the resident representative would have clinched the issue and that his non-examination has vitiated the entire re-assessment proceedings. The plea that the petitioner did not have reasonable opportunity to make his representations does not appear to have been made at any earlier stag. The petitioner does not say that there was no notice calling for his objections proceeding the reassessment. Whatever might have happened before the assessing authority, when an objection was taken before the revisional authority (the first respondent herein) that be had no reasonable opportunity to make his representations, the revisional authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to adduce such evidence and materials as he considers necessary. But, the said opportunity was not availed of by the petitioner and no fresh materials were produced by the petitioner to show that the entries in the exercise notebook could not form the proper basis for making re-assessment. There is, therefore, no substance in the petitioners contention that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner to put forward his objections to the re-assessment. 9. The learned counsel then contends that the entries in the exercise note book by itself cannot be taken as the basis for the re-assessment and it is said that there is no other material to justify the re-assessment. Even before the revisional authority, it has been specifically stated that the ownership of the exercise note book was not disputed by the petitioner. Even before the revisional authority, it has been specifically stated that the ownership of the exercise note book was not disputed by the petitioner. If the exercise note book belongs to the petitioner and the entries noted therein relate to the collections made in the petitioners theatre, then the entries can be taken to represent the true state of affairs, unless the entries are properly explained away by the petitioner. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that the exercise note book was maintained by the Manager, who was maintaining the theatre. The entries made in the exercise note book, every day from 7th May 1963 to 4th December 1963 give the particulars of the distribution to the Collections made each day between the distributors and the exhibitor, during the above period. The quantum of exhibitors share as found in the note book was compared with the quantum disclosed in the return filed by the petitioner in Form II and it was found that in respect of many weeks, the exhibitors share disclosed in Form II returns was much less than the exhibitors share as revealed in the exercise note book during the inspection. This discrepancy between the entries in the returns and the exercise note book has not at all been explained and the petitioner was not able to correlate the amounts mentioned in the exercise note book with the payment made towards exhibitors share, as per the returns. 10. In these circumstances, the re-assessment cannot be said to be without any basis, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner. In our view, the petitioner has not made out his case that the re-assessment, in this case, is invalid. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.