Judgment : OM Prakash, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 a partnership firm is engaged in the business of exhibiting cinematograph films in the cinema, namely, Sarju Chitra Mandir, situate at Rasra, district Ballia. Petitioner No. 2 is a partner in the said firm. 2. ON 25-11-1992 the cinema premises were1 inspected by the Enter tainment Tax Inspector and then he noticed that the urinals for gents and ladies were dirty and no chemicals to disinfect them and to keep hygienic conditions in order were used ; that one chair in the balcony was found broken and 15 chairs in the first class were without the back supports. He, therefore, recommended to the Entertainment Authorities not to permit the petitioners any more to realise maintenance charges at the rate of 25 paise from each viewer, which the petitioners continued to realise with effect from 1-5. 1992, and to recover from the petitioners the maintenance charges already realised from 1-5-1992 from the cine-goers at the aforesaid rate. The inspection report of the Entertainment Tax Inspector is Annexure "3" to the counter-affidavit. Pursuant to this report the District Magistrate, Ballia, (respondent No. 2) passed an impugned order dated 17-5-1993 (Annexure "5" to the writ petition) directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 21,710. 25 representing extra charges realised towards maintenance for the period commencing from 25-11-1992 to 29-3-1993 as entertainment tax within a week from the date of the said order. He then passed another order dated 19-7-1993 (Annexure "7" to the writ petition) directing the postmaster, Head Post Office, Ballia, to deduct Rs. 8,000 from the security account of the petitioners to enable the authorities to recover the balance amount from the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned orders dated 17-5-1993 and 19-7-1993 (Annexures "5" and "7" to the writ petition respectively ). 3. IT is pleaded by the petitioners that simply because on the date of inspection, i. e., 25-11-1992, one chair in the balcony was found broken ; 15 chairs in the first class were found without back supports and that the urinals were found dirty and without disinfectants, no inference can be drawn that no maintenance was done by the petitioners and that extra charges recovered at the rate of 25 paise from each viewer were not utilized towards maintenance. The contention of the petitioners is that cinema requires day to day maintenance, because as and when the electric supply is stopped or the exhibition of the film is interrupted, the viewers start breaking furniture and that repair of the furniture is done throughout. IT is submitted that chairs in the balcony and in the first class are plenty and if one chair in the balcony is found broken and back supports of 15 chairs in the first class are found missing, then the conclusion drawn that extra charges recovered by the petitioners were not utilized towards maintenance, will be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Expenditure on maintenance of the furniture and of the cinema building as a whole, say the petitioner, is recurring one. The petitioners, therefore, pleaded that the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2 being wholly arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable are liable to be quashed. 4. NEXT submission, of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is no provision in the U. P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (briefly 'the Act') to direct the petitioners to refund the aggregate of extra charges realised by them for maintenance from the cine-goers. It is submitted by him that as per the Schedule notified vide notification dated April 12, 1989, published on 13-4-1989 rate of entertainment tax is 75%, if payment for admission is upto 50 Paise only. His submission is that if extra charge of 25 paise within the meaning of Section 3-A (1) (a) of the Act is taken to be the extra admission fee per ticket, then only 75% of that can be realised as tax and rest of that will be retained by the petitioners and that being so, the petitioners cannot be asked to refund the entire amount realised as maintenance charges. First we take up the submission whether the conclusion drawn by the Entertainment Authorities from the inspection report dated 25-11-1992 (Annexure "3" to the counter affidavit) that extra charges realised by the petitioners were not at all utilized for maintenance of the cinema is reason able. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the cinema business, particularly, when the cinematograph films are exhibited in the far-flung areas or in the smaller districts, the crowd of viewers is not very disci plined and they cause considerable breakage of furniture and damage to other fixtures and cinema premises as a whole. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the cinema business, particularly, when the cinematograph films are exhibited in the far-flung areas or in the smaller districts, the crowd of viewers is not very disci plined and they cause considerable breakage of furniture and damage to other fixtures and cinema premises as a whole. 5. OTHERWISE also, a cinema building, which is used by a number of persons in all that shows, requires more maintenance than the buildings used for residential purposes or other purposes not used by multitudes. Therefore, it will not be legitimate to say that no expenditure was made on maintenance by the petitioners at all. This is not the case of the respondents that the chairs which were found broken on the date of inspection remained lying broken for quite sometime. Looking to the user of the cinema building and fixtures therein, one can say that the furniture must have been broken before the date of inspection 'as well and that must have been repaired. The state of affairs found on a single day of inspection cannot clearly indicate that no maintenance was done at all before the date of inspection and that the entire maintenance charges realised from the viewers were simply pocketed by the petitioners. 6. UTILIZATION of maintenance charges should be seen by the authorities in a reasonable manner. The cinema owner may be called upon to furnish the account of maintenance and if that is doubted, then further investigation may be made into the matter. If upon investigation the account furnished by the cinema owner is found to be incorrect or fabricated one, then the authorities may legitimately draw an inference that maintenance charges realised from the ticket holders were not either wholly or partly utilized towards maintenance. Scrutiny of the maintenance account may not be exhaustive but only one of the modes to ascertain truth and that will sufficiently indicate whether the petitioners incurred any expenditure on maintenance. Simply because the entire cinema premises were not found neat and tidy on the date of inspection, no reasonable inference can be drawn that no maintenance was done by the petitioners in the cinema building at all. Simply because the entire cinema premises were not found neat and tidy on the date of inspection, no reasonable inference can be drawn that no maintenance was done by the petitioners in the cinema building at all. The respondents are supposed to act fairly, reasonably and justly, but from their approach that no expenditure was incurred on maintenance simply because there were some deficiency on the date of inspection, it can be said that they acted arbitrarily. The matter, therefore, requires reconsideration. The petitioners may be called upon to furnish the account of maintenance or any other relevant evidence to establish that expenditure was incurred on maintenance. If the petitioners fail to lead cogent evidence to prove the expenditure incurred on maintenance of the cinema premises, then alone the respondents may infer that extra charges realised under Section 3-A (1) (a) of the Act were not utilized for maintenance. 7. COMING to the legal submission of the petitioners, it will be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and of the U. P. Entertainments and Betting Tax Rules, 1981. (for short, 'the Rule' ). Section 3 of the Act is*a charging section. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 declares that there shall be levied and paid on all payments for admission to any entertainment, an entertainment tax at such rate not exceeding 150% of each such payment as the State Government may from time to time notify in this behalf. So, whosoever- seeks admittance to cinema hall will be liable to pay tax, which shall be collected by the proprietor from the person making the payment for admission and that shall be paid to the Government in the manner prescribed. Section 3-A (1) (a) enables the proprietor of a cinema to realise from the person making payment for admission to an entertainment in such cinema an extra charge of 25 paise, which shall be utilized for maintenance of the cinema premised. Proviso to clause (b) to sub- section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that the proprietor of a cinema receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government under any incentive scheme shall not be entitled to realise extra charge under clause (a) during the period such grant-in-aid is received by him. Proviso to clause (b) to sub- section (1) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that the proprietor of a cinema receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government under any incentive scheme shall not be entitled to realise extra charge under clause (a) during the period such grant-in-aid is received by him. Sub section (2) of Section 3-A clearly states that the amount charged under sub-section (1) shall not be deemed to be payment for admission to an entertainment. It is because the extra charge realised under Section 3-A (1) (a) is to be utilized for maintenance of the cinema premises, the proprietor of a cinema holds the amount so realised as a trustee and he is supposed to use that amount only for maintenance and, therefore, such amount is not deemed as admission fee undo* sub-section (2) of Section 3-A. Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3- A, which is relevant for the purpose of the instant case runs as follows : " (3) Where the extra charge referred to.- (a) in clause (a) of sub section (1) has not been utilised for maintenance of cinema premises ; (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . The amount so realised shall be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission to the entertainment and entertainment tax payable thereon. " (italicised ours) 8. THE question for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioners are rightly called upon by the impugned notice to deposit unutilized amount of maintenance as tax. THE controversy revolves around the interpretation of the above reproduced clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A. THE agreement of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that payment for admission to the cinema hall belongs to the petitioners and tax realised in accordance with the rates as prescribed in the schedule, is to be deposited with the State Government. He submits that under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A the unutilized amount shall be deemed to represent ; (1) the aggregate of additional payment for admission to the entertainment and (2) entertainment lax payable thereon. He submits that under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A the unutilized amount shall be deemed to represent ; (1) the aggregate of additional payment for admission to the entertainment and (2) entertainment lax payable thereon. His argument is' that since the unutilized amount represents the aggregate of both, i. e., the admission fee as well as entertainment tax payable thereon, the petitioners cannot be asked to deposit the entries unutilized amount as tax and only 'that part which is apportioned as entertainment tax, is required to be deposited with the respondents. Is the unutilized amount required to be apportioned to the admission fee and entertainment tax payable thereon ? From the scheme of the Act it is clear that extra charge realised for maintenance at the rate of 25 paise per ticket is not for unjust enrichment of the proprietor of the cinema and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that only the part of the unutilized amount which is allegedly to be apportioned to the admission fee is liable to tax, has to be rejected. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules states that the entertainment tax levied under Section 3 of the Act shall be collected by the proprietor of the cinema from every person obtaining admission to an entertainment along with the charge for admission by issuing a ticket for each such payment. Entertainment tax is to be realised in accordance with the rates as stated in the schedule. When unutilized amount for maintenance is not for undue enrichment of the proprietor of the cinema, it follows that the amount is payable to the respondents. The procedure prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 cannot be followed to recover such amount as tax as it is discovered subsequently. To overcome this difficulty the Legislature made a deeming provision under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A to retrieve the unutilized amount of maintenance as entertainment tax and that is why clause (a) of sub- section (3) of Section 3-A says that unutilized amount shall be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission to the entertainment and entertainment tax payable thereon. Clause (a) rightly indicates that unutilized amount, which shall be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission, will be liable to tax by matching amount, meaning thereby that the entire unutilized amount is to be retrieved from the recipient as tax. Under the scheme of the Act, admission fee is liable to tax according to the rates of the ticket sold. But that mechanism cannot possibly be applied to the receipt of maintenance, which remained unutilized, and, therefore, the Legislature deemed the unutilized amount representing the aggregate of additional payment for admission and again the Legislature deemed the said aggregate representing entertainment tax payable thereon. The words "aggregate of" and the conjunction 'and' occurring in clause (a) sufficiently indicate that entertainment tax will be equal to the unutilized amount which shall be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission. The entire unutilized amount will fictionally represent the aggregate of entertainment tax. From clause (a) it is clear that unutilized amount will first be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission and again that amount is deemed to represent the aggregate of entertainment tax payable thereon. It follows from the fictional clause (a) that entertainment tax will be equal to the unutilized amount. 9. CARDINAL principle of law is that a given provision is to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. Under the Act, tax is leviable according to the rates of the tickets sold for each class: If the value of a ticket is more than Re. 1, then the rate of tax is 125%. If the tax is calculated as per the schedule on the unutilized amount, then the tax will far exceed than the unutilized amount and that will be very harsh to the proprietor of the cinema, because he will be required to pay tax more than the amount realised for maintenance. The Act does not contemplate to levy penalty on the proprietors of the cinema, who. failed to utilize the whole amount for maintenance. Extra charge for maintenance is realised with each ticket. It is also possible that cinema premises some times, may not require maintenance and in that situation the cinema proprietor cannot be burdened with greater liability, because no mala fide can be attributed to him in that situation. failed to utilize the whole amount for maintenance. Extra charge for maintenance is realised with each ticket. It is also possible that cinema premises some times, may not require maintenance and in that situation the cinema proprietor cannot be burdened with greater liability, because no mala fide can be attributed to him in that situation. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that the "deeming provision under clause (a) has been made to retrieve the unutilized amount as tax. 10. WE do not agree with the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners that extra charge of 25 paise, which remanded unutilized, will amount to an admission fee per ticket and that will attract tax only at the rate of 75% of the said charge and that 25% of such charge will be retained by the petitioners, because such submission is just contrary to the deeming provision as contained in clause (a) of sub- section (3) of Section 3-A where-under the unutilized amount shall be deemed to represent the aggregate of additional payment for admission. Tax will be calculated as per the rates given in the schedule. Rates of tickets for each class are specified by the cinema owner and, therefore, there is no justification to treat extra charge of 25 paise as the value of each ticket. Value of the ticket is the rate specified by the cinema owner and not the extra charge of 25 paise. Provided the petitioners have failed to utilize the maintenance charges aggregating to Rs. 21710. 25 we hold |that the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to deposit the said amount as tax cannot be said to be illegal. 11. THE petition is, therefore, disposed of finally directing respondent No. 2 to reconsider the factual position and record a clear finding in the light of the above observations giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, whether maintenance charges realised by the petitioners were utilized wholly partly or not at all, and if he comes to the conclusion that such amount was not utilized or utilized partly, then the petitioners may accordingly be called upon to deposit unutilised amount as entertainment tax. 12. UNTIL reconsideration as aforesaid, impugned orders dated 17-5-1993 and 19-7-1993 (Annexures "5" and 7" to the writ petition respectively) will remain inoperative, Petition disposed of.