B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the proprietor of the cinema house named and styled as 'm. K. Theatre' located at Jeypore in the district of Koraput. She was assessed for a period of seven months from 1. 4. 1986 to 31-10-1986 u/s. 9-A of the Orissa Entertainments Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rule 16- (1) of the Orissa Entertainments Tax Rules, 1947 (for short 'the Rules') and extra tax demand of Rs. 1,94,204. 50 was made, as per Annexure-2. The basis for such extra tax demand was the reports of inspections made on 27-5-1986, 1-6-1986, 27-7-1986 and 1-9-1986 indicating evasion of entertainment tax. The revision against such assessment having been dismissed, as per Annexure-6, the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing Annexures 2 and 6. ( 2 ) MR. B. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three contentions :- (I) The composite assessment for seven months is illegal, being contrary to the Act and the Rules; (II) The assessing officer Sri N. Panda was not the Commercial Tax Officer in-charge of Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore although he has described himself as such in the assessment order, but he was the Additional Commercial Tax Officer and as such officer, he had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner; and (III) There has been violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the reports of inspection and the statement of the petitioner recorded by the assessing officer at the time of assessment as at Annexure-1 relating to one month were used for other months also without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same. ( 3 ) THE first two points raised on behalf of the petitioner are of general importance and as such, they require careful examination. So far as the first point is concerned, it is necessary to note some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. There is no direct provision either in the Act or in the Rules as to whether the assessment, should be monthly or quarterly or annually or for any other specific period. Under S. 9-A of the Act, the tax shall be assessed and paid in the prescribed manner. According to S. 3 (8), the word "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Under S. 9-A of the Act, the tax shall be assessed and paid in the prescribed manner. According to S. 3 (8), the word "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under the Act. R. 16-C (1) of the rules provides that if the proprietor fails to submit the returns as required under Rr. 16-A and 16-AA within the time specified therein or the returns submitted by him to the Commercial Tax Officer appear to be incorrect or incomplete, the said officer shall, after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, assess the tax due under the Act, to the best of his judgment. Two returns are required to be submitted by the proprietor, one for the number of shows exhibited in the cinema house and the other for the number of slides, films and trailers exhibited. R. 16-A speaks of the returns for the number of shows exhibited in cinema house according to which the proprietor shall keep a true and correct account of the number of shows exhibited in a month, amount realised for admission and the value of the entertainment stamp utilised thereon and submit to the Commercial Tax Officer a monthly return in Form IV-A by the fifteenth of the succeeding month enclosing a receipted chalan towards full payment of show tax levied under S. 4-A of the Act. R. 16-AA speaks of return for the slides, films and trailers exhibited in a cinema house according to which the proprietor shall keep true and correct account of the number of slides, films and trailers exhibited in a month and submit a monthly return in Form IV-AA to the Commercial Tax Officer by the fifteenth of the succeeding month enclosing a receipted chalan showing full payment of tax payable under S. 4-B of the Act. R. 16-B and R. 16-D may also be referred to. R. 16-B provides for payment of tax under Ss. 4-A and 4-B of the Act by the proprietor every month on or before the tenth of the succeeding month. R. 16-D enjoins that demand-notice on the assessee is required to be issued in Form IV-B which speaks about assessment having been done "during the month". R. 16-B provides for payment of tax under Ss. 4-A and 4-B of the Act by the proprietor every month on or before the tenth of the succeeding month. R. 16-D enjoins that demand-notice on the assessee is required to be issued in Form IV-B which speaks about assessment having been done "during the month". All these provisions leave no room for doubt that the unit of assessment is a month because the assessing officer gets the jurisdiction to make his best judgment assessment, if the proprietor of a cinema house fails to submit monthly returns within the prescribed time or if the returns submitted within the prescribed time are found to be incorrect or incomplete. In the present case, as already stated above, a composite assessment for seven months has been made, the legality of which has been assailed. It appears from the copy of the revision petition (Annexure-3) as also from the written submission (Annexure-4) that the legality of composite assessment for seven months had also been raised before the revisional authority but it is suprising to note that the point was not dealt with at all in the revisional order, as at Annexure-6. ( 4 ) LET us now deal with the validity of a composite assessment order. In State of Orissa v. Chakobhai Ghelabhai, (1960) 11 STC 716, reference was made to Form IV read with Rule 20 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules 1947 which required the assessee to furnish details of his turnover in each quarter and it was observed that the assessment must also be on the taxable turnover of each quarter. The observation made in Ghanashyam Das v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales tax, (1963) 14 STC 976, may be profitably noted and the same is as under:-"the appellant has to submit quarterly returns and assessments are made on the basis of said returns; that is to say, he has to be assessed for his turnover separately in respect of each quarter. Therefore, the question of escape of assessment has to be considered on the ground that each quarter is a separate period for the assessment. "in S. V. Raugiah v. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, (1989) 75 STC 247 (Madras), Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, as it stood before introduction of S. 3 (1-A) in 1974, was under consideration. Therefore, the question of escape of assessment has to be considered on the ground that each quarter is a separate period for the assessment. "in S. V. Raugiah v. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, (1989) 75 STC 247 (Madras), Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, as it stood before introduction of S. 3 (1-A) in 1974, was under consideration. Under that Act, assessment was required to be made in respect of a week in which the cinema was shown but there was a single order of assessment for two consecutive years the legality of which was challenged. The Madras High Court quashed the assessment holding that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to make composite assessment. In Shyama Charan Shukla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1974) 34 STC 584 : (1974 Tax LR 2324) (Madh Pra) (FB), there was a composite assessment covering quarters within and beyond three years from the issue of notice under S. 11 (5) without showing separately assessment of tax for each quarter. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed such composite assessment leaving it to the Sales Tax authorities to make the assessment separately for the quarters not barred under S. 11 (5) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Being aggrieved by such decision of the High Court, the State Government went up in appeal to the Apex Court but the appeal was dismissed vide State of M. P. v. Shyama Charan Shukla, (1990) 79 STC 439. The view expressed in the aforesaid cases is that assessment has to be made on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee. If the assessee is required to submit monthly returns, he is to be assessed monthly and likewise if he is required to submit returns quarterly or annually, he is to be assessed on such returns quarterly or annually. The rationale behind such view is that in case of composite assessment, the assessee is liable to be penalised by extra tax demand for certain periods for which his returns are not found defective. That being so, and also in view of what has been laid down by the Apex Court, we hold that the composite assessment for the period of seven months is unsustainable, being bad in law. That being so, and also in view of what has been laid down by the Apex Court, we hold that the composite assessment for the period of seven months is unsustainable, being bad in law. ( 5 ) COMING to the second contention, it is seen that the assessing officer is Sri N. Panda who has described himself in the assessment order as Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore. It is submitted by Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner that Sri N. Panda was in fact the Additional Commercial Tax Officer and not Commercial Tax Officer. This submission has been stated in the petition which has not been denied by the opposite parties by filing any counter. Further, to satisfy us, he has invited our attention to the State Government notification in SRO No. 467/86 dated 22-5-1986 in which at serial No. 38 Sri Nilakantha Panda has been described as Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Joypore and also the State Government notification in SRO No. 513/86 dated 2-6-1986 where one Sri Pramod Chandra Mohanty has been described as Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore. Mr. S. K. Patnaik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties does not canvass that subsequent to the aforesaid notifications, there was another notification declaring Sri N. Panda as the Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessing officer Sri N. Panda was the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore, as contended on behalf of the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE next question that falls for consideration is whether the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned assessment order. As already indicated, according to R. 16-C of the Rules the officer competent to make assessment is the Commercial Tax Officer. The expression "commercial Tax Officer" has been defined in S. 3 (3-a) of the Act. According to that definition, commercial Tax Officer means any of the officers appointed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Sales Tax Act') other than the Commissioner, as the State Government may, by notification, appoint to discharge any of the functions of the Commercial Tax Officer under that provision in respect of any area. According to that definition, commercial Tax Officer means any of the officers appointed under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for short 'the Sales Tax Act') other than the Commissioner, as the State Government may, by notification, appoint to discharge any of the functions of the Commercial Tax Officer under that provision in respect of any area. This meaning of the expression "commercial Tax Officer" is the same for that expression appearing in the rules in view of what is stated in R. 3 (b) of the Rules. So, this takes us to find out who are the officers appointed under the Sales Tax Act. S. 3 (3) of the Sales Tax Act reads as under :-"the State Government may appoint such other persons under any prescribed designation including an Additional Commissioner and a Deputy Commissioner to assist the Commissioner and they shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by or under the provisions of this Act within such local area as may be assigned to them by the Commissioner. "in place of the word 'under' appearing above if the word 'of' would have been used, then the intention of the legislature would have been more clear. Be that at it may, the word "under", according to the Chambers Dictionary, 1983 Edition and Black's Law Dictionary, means, inter alia, "according to". If this meaning is assigned to the word "under" then this sub-section empowers the State Government to appoint such other persons under any prescribed designation to assist the Commissioner and after such appointment they can exercise such power and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by or under the provisions of this Act within such local area as may be assigned to them by the Commissioner. On a consideration of this provision, it becomes crystal clear that any person can exercise power under the Act as Commercial Tax Officer, if that person with prescribed designation has been appointed by the State Government to assist the Commissioner. The expression "prescribed" appearing in the aforesaid sub-section means prescribed by Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (for short 'the Sales Tax Rules') made under the Sales Tax Act, according to S. 2 (e ). The expression "prescribed" appearing in the aforesaid sub-section means prescribed by Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (for short 'the Sales Tax Rules') made under the Sales Tax Act, according to S. 2 (e ). The designations of the Sales Tax authorities are found in R. 3 (1) of the Sales Tax Rules which speaks of, inter alia, Sales Tax Officer but not Additional Sales. Tax Officer. It is pertinent to note that in notification SRO No. 406/85 dated 22-6-1985 the State Government, by virtue of its power u/ S. 3 (3) of the Sales Tax Act, has appointed Sri N. Panda as Sales Tax Officer and thereafter, under the said sub-section the Commissioner of Sales Tax has issued the notification in SRO No. 467/ 86 dated 22-5-1986 referred to us by Mr. Agarwal delimiting the jurisdiction of Sri N. Panda to Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore and while defining his jurisdiction, he has described him as Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore. It is, thus, seen that Sri N. Panda who has been appointed as Sales Tax Officer by the State Government has been subsequently allotted Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, to exercise his power as Sales Tax Officer over that area. The submission of Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner is that if Sri N. Panda was really the Sales Tax Officer of Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore, he would not have been described as Additional Commercial Tax Officer of that circle. The submission does not impress us at all because it has already been found as a fact that the State Government has already appointed Sri N. Panda as Sales Tax Officer and it is not necessary for us to determine as to why he was described as Additional Commercial Tax Officer by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the notification issued by him delimiting the jurisdiction of Sri Panda. Sri N. Panda having been appointed as Sales Tax Officer by the State Government which designation is prescribed in R. 3 (1) of the Sales Tax Rules, he becomes the Commercial Tax Officer within the meaning of the Act and is, therefore, entitled to exercise jurisdiction over Koraput I Circle, Jeypore which area has been assigned to him by the competent authority i. e. the Commissioner of Sales Tax. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Agarwal for the petitioner has referred us the decision in Central Potteries v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 3 STC 15 in this connection. In that case, the assessment had been made by an Additional Sales Tax officer the competence of whom to make assessment had been assailed. The assessment had been made under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 which is almost similar to the Act with which we are concerned and since R. 3 framed under that Act did not include an Additional Sales Tax Officer as one of the authorities like the one with which we are concerned, an argument had been advanced on behalf of the assessee that the assessing officer lacked competence in making assessment. On behalf of the State, it was merely contended that the Additional Sales Tax Officer was really only a Sales Tax Officer and that the word "additional" was merely descriptive. Rejecting the contention raised on behalf of the State, it was held by the Nagpur High Court that the Additional Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make assessment. This decision can have no application because in this case we have found that the assessing officer namely, Sri N. Panda has been appointed as Sales Tax Officer by the State Government whereas there is no mention in the above cited case whether the Additional Sales Tax Officer had been appointed as Sales Tax Officer or not. We, therefore, hold that an Additional Sales Tax Officer has no jurisdiction to make the assessment under the Act as such officer but if he has been appointed as Sales Tax Officer by the State Government u/s. 3 (3) of the Sales Tax Act read with R. 3 (1) of the Sales Tax Rules, then he gets jurisdiction to make assessment under the Act. In this case, the assessment having been made by Sri N. Panda who has been appointed as Sales Tax Officer, he had competence and jurisdiction to make the assessment. ( 8 ) IT is then contended by Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner that since Sri N. Panda was not the Commercial Tax Officer incharge of the circle, he had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. ( 8 ) IT is then contended by Mr. Agarwal for the petitioner that since Sri N. Panda was not the Commercial Tax Officer incharge of the circle, he had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. In this connection, he has referred to Finance Department Notification No. 4534-CTE-4/63-F. , dated 19-2-1964 which, so far material, is extracted below:-"in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 19 of the Orissa Entertainments Tax Act, 1946 (Orissa Act V of 1946), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department No. 2070f. , dated the 29/03/1947, the State Government do hereby delegate the powers specified in column (1) of the schedule given below to the officers specified against each of them in column (2) thereof : schedule power officer to whom delegated (1) (2)"xx xx 4. Powers to approve arrangements for the levy of the tax on the basis of returns and to approve the amount of security from the proprietor of an entertainment under sub-sec. (1) of Section 6. Commercial Tax Officer, Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, in-charge of the Circle. XX xx"the contention lacks substance because we are concerned with assessment made u/s. 9-A of the Act read with R. 16-C of the rules which empowers a Commercial Tax Officer to make an assessment and not the State Government and as such, there is no question of delegation of power of the State Government on any officer. Item 4 of the notification, as quoted above, has reference to S. 6 (1) of the Act with which we are not concerned, as the same does not deal with assessment under the Act. ( 9 ) IN so far as the third contention is concerned, we do not propose to express any opinion in view of the acceptance of the first submission of the learned counsel, but we would like to observe that proper opportunity has to be given to the assessee to explain any material sought to be used against her. ( 10 ) ON the aforesaid analysis, we allow the petition and quash Annexures 2 and 6. It would be open to the competent officer to make fresh assessment as permitted by law. Petition allowed.