JUDGMENT M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the Kalikavu Panchayat against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No.9696 of 1990-D dated 3-11-1992, allowing the Writ Petition filed by K.T. Chekkunni, the first respondent. 2. Respondent-writ petitioner challenged Exts. P13, P21 and P27 notices issued by the Executive Officer of the Appellant-Panchayat seeking to recover entertainment tax under the provisions of the Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, 1961. Writ Petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.5,636.07 by way of entertainment tax, additional entertainment tax, show tax, surchargje, etc. The relevant shows said to have been exhibited from 1-7-1990 to 4­7-1990. Ext. P13 notice shows that the licence issued to the writ petitioner on 30-12-1989 expired on 3-6-1990 and that the writ petitioner exhibited 11 shows without licence from 1-7­1990 to 4-7-1990. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, respondent-writ petitioner contended that there was no provision for any best judgment assessment to be made by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, and that the only provison which he could invoke was S.10, which provided for prosecution for non-payment of entertainment tax. The learned Single Judge accepted the above said contention, and followed the earlier decision of this Court in K.E. Mathew v. Thottapuzhassery Pancliayat, 1969 KLT 224 , and allowed the Writ Petition. In that decision it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the Panchayat could not assess or re-assess entertainment tax which has escaped assessment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on S.6(2) of the Act which reads as follows: "6(2) The entertainments tax in the case of admission otherwise than by ticket shall be recoverable from the proprietor." In our view, the provisions of S.6(2) do not enable the Executive Officer of the Panchayat to assess or re-assess tax which has escaped assessment. S.6(2) is intended to cover cases of admission of persons into theatre otherwise than by way of tickets. The said provision is not intended to enable the Executive Officer to assess or re-assess tax which has escaped assessment. Reliance is also placed on S.8 which deals with the manner of recovery of tax and fines under the Act. It reads as follows: "8. The said provision is not intended to enable the Executive Officer to assess or re-assess tax which has escaped assessment. Reliance is also placed on S.8 which deals with the manner of recovery of tax and fines under the Act. It reads as follows: "8. Manner of recovery of tax and fines under the Act.-(1) Any amount due on account of the entertainments tax may be recovered by the local authority in the same manner as any tax payable to the local authority. � In our view, even this provision cannot help the appellant. Unless the amount is 'due', the procedure for recovery cannot be invoked. For the amount to become due, there must be a provision for assessment of tax, which has escaped assessment. As there is no such provision, there is no question of falling any amount due for invoicing S.8. 5. The only provision that could have been resorted to by the Executive Officer was S.10(l) of the Act which reads as follows: "10. Penalty for non-payment of tax.-(1) If any person is admitted for payment of any place of entertainment and the provisions of S.5 are not complied with, the proprietor of the entertainment to which such person is admitted shall, on conviction by a Magistrate, be liable in respect of each such offence to a fine not exceeding two hundred rupees and shall in addition be liable to pay any tax which should have been paid." It is therefore clear that in addition to a fine of Rs.200/- the Magistrate can recover tax which should have otherwise than been paid. It was for the Panchayat to have resorted to the above said remedy provided under the Act. 6. It is contended that a person who fails to pay tax would be placed in a much better position than a person who files returns for assessment of tax. 7. This is no doubt true. But in as much as there is no provision for assessing entertainment tax which has escaped assessment, we are unable to help the appellant. The power to assess tax which has escaped assessment is a power to be conferred by the legislature and it cannot be implied from S. 10(1) of the Act, or from S.6(2) or from S.8. It is therefore for the Legislature to remedy, the situation. The power to assess tax which has escaped assessment is a power to be conferred by the legislature and it cannot be implied from S. 10(1) of the Act, or from S.6(2) or from S.8. It is therefore for the Legislature to remedy, the situation. Unfortunately, even after the decision of this Court in K.E. Mathew's case rendered in 1969 the Legislature has not so far filled up this lacuna. We are unable to help the appellant. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. Dismissed