Judgment The lessee, Eros Theatre, Adyar, who is the petitioner herein has filed these petitions to quash the proceedings initiated by the Entertainment Tax Officer before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras-15 in C.T.M.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 1978. 2. The petitioner who is a lessee of Eros Theatre at Adyar was originally a lessee of Kapali Talkies. He opted for submitting weekly returns of entertainments tax and therefore a permit in Form IV (the affidavit does not say under what rules but obviously under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules) was granted to him. Rule 21 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Rules, 1939, says that the proprietor of a theatre should furnish security for proper payment of entertainment tax. While he was a lessee of Kapali Talkies, he has paid a cash deposit of Rs. 9,804 and in respect of Eros Theatre a cash deposit of Rs. 7,700 has been paid and therefore there was a total cash deposit of Rs. 17,504 and the Entertainments Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle, Madras, has adjusted a sum of Rs. 6,373 (the affidavit does not anywhere show as to what this adjustment pertains to) and after such assessment, a balance of cash deposit of Rs. 11,131 is left with the Entertainments Tax Officer. The petitioner states in the affidavit filed in support of the parties that for the weeks starting from 22nd January, 1978, 29th January, 1978, 5th February, 1978 and 12th February, 1978 a total sum of Rs. 16,685 is payable as entertainments: tax, that he was asked to submit from 14th December, 1977, daily returns instead of weekly returns, that as he was asked to file returns, daily, it is enough if 75 per cent. of the tax payable on tickets. based on fully capacity of the auditorium for a day is deposited as security, that he requested the department to adjust the balance of cash deposit towards arrears of tax payable, that he also deposited a sum of Rs. 5,254 towards the balance of arrears and therefore ‘the entire arrears were thus settled’ (obviously meaning that the arrears have been wiped out). He adds that he also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 as security and that fact was also informed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar division. 3. 5,254 towards the balance of arrears and therefore ‘the entire arrears were thus settled’ (obviously meaning that the arrears have been wiped out). He adds that he also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 as security and that fact was also informed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Adyar division. 3. It is further stated in the affidavit that on an erroneous assumption that 75 per cent, of tax for the full week should be deposited under rule 21, the department insisted on maintaining the security amount already furnished and was reluctant to adjust the security deposit towards the arrears and therefore the stand taken by the department is contrary to the provisions of the rules and is untenable, that he now understands that the department has moved the IX Metropolitan Magistrate under section 10 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 to realise the arrears as if it were a fine imposed by the Magistrate, that he also understands that distraint warrant has also been issued, that as he was asked to submit returns daily, he is entitled to request the department to adjust the security deposit amount and if the amount in deposit is so adjusted, there will be no arrears and that the action taken by the department under section 10 (1) (b) is therefore without jurisdiction and the proceedings initiated before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate should be quashed. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed by the Entertainments Tax Officer, Adyar Assessment Circle. He admitted that the petitioner opted for submission of weekly returns of entertainments tax and that a permit in Form IV was issued to him. He stated that the security deposit payable for Eros Theatre is Rs. 13,270, that according to rule 21 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, a sum of Rs. 12,070-80 should always remain with the Commercial Taxes Department (Entertainment Tax Officer, Adyar Circle) as security deposit in respect of Eros Theatre, that under rule 25 only the amount that remains in excess of Rs. 12-070-80 can be adjusted towards future arrears, if any, due by the lessee of the theatre and that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right insist on the security deposit being adjusted towards tax arrears. 5. The respondent also states that a sum of Rs. 12-070-80 can be adjusted towards future arrears, if any, due by the lessee of the theatre and that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right insist on the security deposit being adjusted towards tax arrears. 5. The respondent also states that a sum of Rs. 9,804-10 which was paid by the petitioner towards security deposit as lessee of Kabali Talkies has also been taken into account and that amount together with the sum of Rs. 8,800 paid by the petitioner as security deposit for Eros Theatre amounts to Rs. 18,604-10, that after a sum of Rs. 6,373 has been adjusted towards arrears of tax due by the petitioner and after adjustment of a sum of Rs. 1,550 towards penalty for non-payment of compounding fees fixed by the Entertainments Tax Officer, Adyar, for the delay in the submission of weekly returns and remittance of tax, the amount lying to the credit of the petitioner is Rs. 10,681 and that amount fell short of Rs. 1,389-80 of the required security deposit of Rs. 12,070-80 and therefore the petitioner cannot ask for adjustment of tax arrears from the security deposit of Rs. 10,681-00. The respondent denied the allegation that the petitioner has been permitted to submit daily returns instead of weekly returns. He also stated that a sum Rs. 5,254 remitted by the petitioner has been adjusted towards arrears of tax for the week ending 22nd January, 1978, and for the balance of arrears, action was taken against the petitioner under section 10 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 and under these circumstances the petitions to quash the proceedings have to be dismissed. 6. In a reply affidavit, the petitioner stated that the allegations that he has not been directed to submit daily returns is not correct, that the Entertainments Tax Officer requested the petitioner to submit Form IV permit issued by him for verification and retained it and issued a fresh Form IV permit for the period subsequent to 24th April, 1978, in which he has altered the permit as one for weekly returns. 7. A written argument was filed by Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner in these cases and the learned Public Prosecutor also filed a written argument, but after some adjournments another counsel Mr. V. Gopinathan entered appearance for the petitioner and submitted another written argument. Mr. 7. A written argument was filed by Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner in these cases and the learned Public Prosecutor also filed a written argument, but after some adjournments another counsel Mr. V. Gopinathan entered appearance for the petitioner and submitted another written argument. Mr. Gopinathan, learned Counsel stated that he is not entering into the questions of fact relating to the correctness of the amount of arrears due or all the adjustment of the security deposit amount, but confines himself to the question as to whether section 10(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act can be invoked for collection of surcharge and whether such procedure is valid in law. The learned Public Prosecutor agreed to this and arguments were advanced only on that question. 8. Mr. Gopinathan contended that the Entertainments Tax Officer is not legally empowered according to section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, to initiate proceedings for recovery of arrears of surcharge from the petitioner. Section 10 (1) of the Act runs thus: “10 (1). Any amount due on account of the tax under section 4 or 4-A or under both may, without prejudice to any other mode of collection, be recovered-(a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue, (b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him.” Section 4 is to the effect that on each payments for admission to any entertainment, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government entertainment tax calculated at the rates given in section 4. The proviso to that section says that in the case of cinematograph exhibition, the tax shall be calculated at the rates specified and shown in section 4 on each payment for admission after excluding from such payment the amount of tax. Section 4-A (1) of the Act runs thus: “4-A (1). In the case of cinematograph exhibitions in addition to the tax under section 4, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government, a tax calculated at the following rates, namely: Both sections 4 and 4-A of the Act relate to collection of tax and additional tax at the rates specified in those sections. In the case of cinematograph exhibitions in addition to the tax under section 4, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government, a tax calculated at the following rates, namely: Both sections 4 and 4-A of the Act relate to collection of tax and additional tax at the rates specified in those sections. Section 10 (1) (b) refers to the manner of recovery of tax due under section 4 or 4-A of the Act or under both and priority of arrears of tax over other claims (see amended section). The argument, as I earlier pointed out, 19, that section 10 does not empower the collection of surcharge. The question is whether surcharge has been levied. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit of the Entertainments Tax Officer, Adyar, certain particulars relating to seating capacity land the tax payable have been given. In his reply affidavit, the petitioner stated that the Entertainments Tax Officer has erred in calculating the tax payable for a day for the purpose of security deposit taking into account the surcharge payable under the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961 and it is also pointed out that there is no specific provisions in the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act for demanding security deposit for the surcharge payable under the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act. This fact has not been disputed and therefore it could be taken that surcharge on tax has also been demanded of the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Gopinathan is that section 4-B of the Act empowers the collection of additional tax for admissions to entertainments, but section 10 does not empower the collection of arrears of surcharge as section 10 of the Act does not include in it section 4-B. What is contended by Mr. Gopinathan is that the omission in section 10 of section 4-B is deliberate and the Legislature in its wisdom throughout not to collect the arrears of surcharge in the manner specified in section 10. This contention well founded as it is attractive. Section 10 does not speak anything about section 4-B, but still reliance was placed on the ruling in Raghavendra v. Entertainment Tax Officer which does not in any way advance the. case of the petitioner. This contention well founded as it is attractive. Section 10 does not speak anything about section 4-B, but still reliance was placed on the ruling in Raghavendra v. Entertainment Tax Officer which does not in any way advance the. case of the petitioner. Section 9 (3) of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act which has been dealt with by the said decision runs thus: “Any amount of tax, surcharge of additional tax or any other amount including penalty due under this Act may, without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered- (a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue; or (b) on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him.” A reading of that section shows that surcharge also can be collected as if it were an arrear of land revenue or on application to any Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him. As I earlier pointed out, section 10 (1) deals only with the amount due on account of tax under section 4 or 4-A or both and does not concern itself with section 4-B of the Act. 9. But the learned Public Prosecutor would state that section 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act Authorities the Entertainments Tax Officer to follow the procedure laid in section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act to collect arrears of surcharge. Section 4 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act (LII of 1961) runs thus: “The authorities for the time being empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the Entertainment Tax Act, shall, subject to any rules made under this Act, assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax payable under clause (a), or clause (6) of sub-section (1) of section 3 (including any penalty payable in respect thereof) in the same manner as the tax under section 4 or section 4-A as the case may be, of the Entertainments Tax Act is assessed, paid and collected; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the Entertainments Tax Act; and the provisions of that Act including the provisions relating to composition of tax, returns, appeals, revisions, offences, penalties and the compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly.” 10. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that section 10 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Act is the only provision for the recovery of the alleged arrears. A reference to section 4 (2) of Act LII of 1961, shows that the authorities empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of tax under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act shall subject to any rule made under Act LII of 1961 assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax payable under clause (a) or (b) of subjection (1) of section 3 including any penalty payable in respect thereof in the same manner as the tax under section 4 or 4-A of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act is assessed, paid and collected. Section 3 (1) of Act LII of 1961 states as follows: “Any local authority may levy, in the form of a surcharge,- (a) a tax on each payment for admission’ to any entertainment held within the local limits of the local authority at such a rate, not exceeding the rate of tax levied under section 4 of the Entertainments Tax Act for that payment, as the local authority may determine; (b) a tax on each show of cinematograph exhibition held within the local limits of the local authority at such rates not exceeding one and a half times the rate of tax levied under section 4-A of the Entertainments Tax Act for that show, as the local authority may determine.” Therefore, the surcharge on Entertainments Tax and on tax for cinematograph exhibitions payable under clause (a) or ( b) of sub section (1) of section 3 of Act LII of 1961 can be collected in the same manner as the tax under section 4 or4-A of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act and for that purpose the authorities empowered under the Entertainments Tax Act may exercise all or any of the powers under the Entertainments Tax Act. Section 4 (2) of Act LII of 1961 states that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act including the provisions relating to composition of tax, returns, appeals, revisions, offences, penalties and the compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly. But Mr. Section 4 (2) of Act LII of 1961 states that the provisions of the Entertainments Tax Act including the provisions relating to composition of tax, returns, appeals, revisions, offences, penalties and the compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly. But Mr. Gopinathan pointed out that the applications made before the Magistrate were under section 10 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act and not under section 4 (2) of Act LII of 1961 and therefore the applications under section 10 (1) (b) are bad in law. He also pointed out that the surcharge due under section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 should reach the State Government and the surcharge under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act should go to the authority. What is contended for the petitioner by his learned Counsel is that there is no indication in the applications about the enactment under which the surcharge is claimed. The mere fact that the applications omitted to mention the provisions of section 4 (2) of Act LII of 1961 would not vitiate the proceedings under section 10(1)(b) of the Entertainments Tax Act. It is a well accepted legislative practice to incorporate by reference, if the legislature so chooses, the provisions of some other Act so far as they are relevant for the purpose and in furtherance of the scheme and objects of that Act (please see observations in Agarwal Trading Corporation v. Collector of Customs. The applications are therefore not bad in law. Unless there is any manifest or patent injustice apparent on the face of the record, the High Court will not quash the proceedings. The applications are dismissed.