DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THE above revision petitions were filed by the revision petitioners against the common order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner, (CT), kakinada in the appeal Nos. E-94/98-99, e-95/98-99, E-96/98-99 and E-97/98-99 in allowing the appeals and remanding the matters to the assessing authority with a direction to issue fresh notice to the appellants and after giving an opportunity to them and to consider their objections and to pass the assessment orders afresh. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the revisions are as follows: ( 3 ) THE revision petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa Theatre at Thuni and he paid the Entertainment Tax under section 4 of the A. P. Entertainments Tax act, 1939 (for short the Act ) up to 31. 12. 1983. Subsequently, Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were amended and the revision petitioner challenged the amendment in W. P. No. 7241 of 1984 which was subsequently dismissed. The revision petitioner thereupon filed the civil appeal in Supreme Court which was dismissed^in Civil Appeal No. 1488 of 1985 dated 10. 5. 1993. The Supreme Court further upheld the validity of the amended provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. There was an interim direction when the writ petition was filed in the High Court. After the dismissal of the Civil Appeal in the Supreme Court, the assessing authority issued a notice and determined the difference of tax payable. The revision petitioner took several objections and the main objection was that in the absence of assessments within the period of limitation, the demand is illegal and is barred by limitation. The assessing authority overruled the objections and passed the assessment orders, but the appellate Deputy Commissioner held that the assessment was within the period of limitation but the assessing officer has not given reasonable opportunity and considered the objections raised by the assessee and therefore remanded the matter for fresh disposal for giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the common order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) Kakinada, the revision petitioner filed the above four revisions contending that the order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner is illegal and not maintainable. The Appellate Deputy commissioner ought to have held that the assessment orders dated 22. 6. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the common order passed by the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) Kakinada, the revision petitioner filed the above four revisions contending that the order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner is illegal and not maintainable. The Appellate Deputy commissioner ought to have held that the assessment orders dated 22. 6. 1998 are barred by limitation inasmuch as they were passed beyond six years. The assessing authority has not given reasonable opportunity to the revision petitioner and has not considered the objections filed and therefore the order of the Appellate Deputy commissioner is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) NOW the following questions of law are involved in the above revisions:1. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner is justified in not upholding the contention of the petitioner that in the absence of specific period of limitation under the act for completion of assessment is one year from the end of relevant quarter which is the reasonable time? 2. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner erred in not accepting the plea of the petitioner that in the event of six years being the outer time limit contemplated under law even for assessing escaped assessment, six years from the end of the relevant quarter should be considered as outer limit for completing the assessment? 3. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in not accepting the contention of the petitioner that the orders of assessment passed as late as 11 years after the end of the relevant quarter are barred by limitation, as the same was not passed within six years from the end of the relevant quarter? 4. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High court and Supreme Court should be excluded though the said orders operated only in regard to collection of tax but not to the completion of assessment proceedings as such? 5. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in directing remand to the Entertainment tax Officer instead of nullifying the order of Entertainment Tax Officer dated 22. 6. 1998? ( 6 ) POINTS 1 to 5: The revision petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa theatre, Thuni and he was regularly paying entertainment tax up to 31. 12. 1983. 5. Whether the Appellate Deputy commissioner (CT) is justified in directing remand to the Entertainment tax Officer instead of nullifying the order of Entertainment Tax Officer dated 22. 6. 1998? ( 6 ) POINTS 1 to 5: The revision petitioner is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa theatre, Thuni and he was regularly paying entertainment tax up to 31. 12. 1983. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act were amended under the provisions of A. P. Ordinance of IX of 1984 and the revision petitioner challenged the said amended provisions in w. P. No. 7241 of 1984 and the High Court in W. P. M. P. No. 9298 of 1984 passed the following order:"there shall be stay of collection of entertainment Tax under the provision of ordinance IX of 1984 subject to the following conditions. (a) The petitioner shall continue to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the principal Act X of 1939 as amended by Clause 3 of the A. P. Ordinance No. 31 of 1983. (b) The petitioner shall furnish immovable property as security or bank guarantee for the difference of entertainment tax amount payable under the provisions of ordinance IX of 1984 and the tax actually payable by the petitioner under the preceding clause (a) of this order. (c) The bank guarantee or immovable property security shall be furnished every month commencing from May, 1984 on or before 15th of every month. (d) The security furnished above shall be to the satisfaction of the concerned entertainment Tax Officer. " ( 7 ) AS the matter was pending in the high Court and later in the Supreme Court, no steps were taken to pass assessment orders and after the dismissal of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the assessing authority determined the arrears of tax payable for which the assessee filed objections stating that the same is barred by limitation. The revision petitioner contended that the entertainment Tax Officer has to pass assessment orders within the reasonable time and having failed to pass the assessment orders within six years, the present demand is illegal. It is further contended that the entertainment Tax Officer has not considered the objections raised by the exhibitor. The revision petitioner contended that the entertainment Tax Officer has to pass assessment orders within the reasonable time and having failed to pass the assessment orders within six years, the present demand is illegal. It is further contended that the entertainment Tax Officer has not considered the objections raised by the exhibitor. ( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner contended that section 9 (2) of the Act contemplates that the assessment order has to be passed basing on the return submitted by the exhibitor. Rule 16 of the A. P. Entertainment Tax rules (for short the Rules ) contemplates that such an assessment has to be made basing on Form-VI and making such enquiry as may be necessary and pass an order for each quarter. Though there is no specific provision for making assessment, the same has to be done within the reasonable time. Since the outer limit contemplated for escaped assessment is six years any assessment passed beyond six years is barred by limitation. Learned Special Govt. Pleader for Taxes contended that the Act and the Rules do not provide any period of limitation for passing the assessment order, but there is provision only with regard to escaped assessment. Further it is contended by the Special Government Pleader for taxes that since the matter was pending in the High Court and the Supreme Court and there was stay of collection of tax, the balance of tax can be collected after the disposal of the appeal in the Supreme Court. The Special Government Pleader further contended that the assessment is within the reasonable time and at any rate within six years if the period of stay granted by the high Court and the Supreme Court are excluded. Further since the Appellate Deputy commissioner remanded the matter for fresh disposal, the revisions may be dismissed. ( 9 ) SECTION 9 (2) of the Act provides as follows:"9. If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any return submitted under subsection (1) is correct and complete, it shall assess the amount of tax payable by the proprietor on the basis thereof. " ( 10 ) RULE 16 of the Rules provide as follows: 16. ( 9 ) SECTION 9 (2) of the Act provides as follows:"9. If the prescribed authority is satisfied that any return submitted under subsection (1) is correct and complete, it shall assess the amount of tax payable by the proprietor on the basis thereof. " ( 10 ) RULE 16 of the Rules provide as follows: 16. Final assessment on the basis of the returns :on receipt of the returns in Form vi, the assessing authority shall, if he is satisfied after such scrutiny of the accounts and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, that the return is correct and complete, finally assess on the basis of the return the tax or taxes payable under the Act for each quarter, or for such period less than a quarter as may be considered necessary by the said authority". ( 11 ) THE Act is a self-contained Act which provides for levy and collection of entertainment Tax from the exhibitors of cinema. The said Act was amended by ordinance IX of 1984 and the said amendment was challenged by the revision petitioner. Under the amended provisions, the revision petitioner had to pay more tax. The High Court granted stay of collection of additional tax as per the amended provisions and specifically directed the assessee to give security for the actual difference of amount payable by him by virtue of the amendment. The assessee was regularly filing the Form VI return as contemplated under the Act and the Rules. In view of the stay orders granted by the high Court and later by the Supreme Court, the collection of additional tax was stayed and the revision petitioner furnished bank guarantee by way of security for the said amount. Subsequently, when the matter was disposed, the assessing authority assessed the arrears of tax payable as per the amended provisions basing on Form VI filed by the assessee. The revision petitioner was regularly paying the tax payable under old provision and furnished bank guarantee for the amount due under the amended provisions. The assessee knew the difference of tax payable for which he furnished bank guarantee as there was stay and therefore the assessing authority could no pass assessment orders for the amount due at that time till the matter was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. The assessee knew the difference of tax payable for which he furnished bank guarantee as there was stay and therefore the assessing authority could no pass assessment orders for the amount due at that time till the matter was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. I have gone through the terms and conditions imposed in the High Court order in the stay petition filed before the High Court in the writ petition. As per the orders passed by the High Court, the period, when the matter was pending in the High Court and the supreme Court, has to be excluded for the purpose of limitation and hence the Appellate deputy Commissioner has not committed any illegality in coming to the conclusion that the demand is not barred by limitation. The argument advanced by the advocate for the revision petitioner cannot be sustained in view of the stay orders granted by the high Court and the said period has to be excluded for passing the assessment orders. In view of the fact that the High Court stayed the collection of arrears of difference of tax payable, the assessing authority could not pass any assessment order, but on the other hand, the assessee, the revision petitioner himself furnished bank guarantee for the said amounts. Therefore, the said period has to be necessarily excluded and as the matter was seized of by the High court and the Supreme Court, the assessing authority could not pass any assessment orders and raise any demand while the matter was pending. For the above said reasons, I am not able to accept the contentions of the revision petitioner that the appellate Deputy Commissioner committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the period has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation. No doubt the revision petitioner has raised several contentions and filed written objections before the assessing authority, which has not been considered and therefore the Appellate Deputy commissioner rightly remanded the matter for fresh disposal. For the above said reasons, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is justified in directing the remand of the case to the Entertainment Tax Officer instead of nullifying the order. He is also further justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High court and the Supreme Court should be excluded and the assessment orders passed now are not barred by limitation. He is also further justified in holding that the period covered by the stay orders granted by the High court and the Supreme Court should be excluded and the assessment orders passed now are not barred by limitation. For the above circumstances, there are no merits in the revision petitions and all the revisions are liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the result, all the Revision petitions are dismissed confirming the impugned common order passed by the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) kakinada dated 9-10-1998. No order as to costs.