L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE eight revisions arise under identical set of facts Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. Two cine theatres from Jogipet Village, Medak District, are the petitioners. Both of them have submitted applications in Form-Ill, year after year, for grant of permission under Form-IV and they were accordingly issued. The subject matter of these eight revisions is the rate of tax applicable for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000. ( 2 ) FOR the years referred to above, the petitioners were required to pay the entertainment tax at the rate of 4% treating the population of the village as less than 15,000. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were issued notices, dated 12-03-2001, in exercise of power under rule 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment tax Rules, 1939 (for short the Rules ) informing them that the population of the jogipet Village was 15,000 even from the year 1996 and the tax leviable for the-theatres was 5%. They were required to show cause as to why the differential tax shall not be recovered from them. On the ground that the petitioners did not submit any explanation, the respondent herein passed orders demanding the differential tax of 1%. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred appeals before the appellate authority. The appeals were rejected through similar orders, dated 28-11-2003. Hence, these revision petitions. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, sri Tej Prakash Toshniwal, submits that levy of entertainment tax is always a matter of agreement between the exhibitor and the department and that the agreement cannot be varied unilaterally in the middle of the year. He submits that the respondent was satisfied as to the rate of tax for the relevant period and there was absolutely no justification for the next incumbent in the office to demand the differential tax. He further contends that the initiation of proceedings under Rule 32 of the Rules is without any basis in the context of the facts. ( 5 ) SRI K. Raj Reddy, Special Government pleader for Taxes, submits that the rate of entertainment tax depends on the population of the village in which the theatres are located and it is matter of record that the population of Jogipet Village was more than 15,000 in the year 1996. ( 5 ) SRI K. Raj Reddy, Special Government pleader for Taxes, submits that the rate of entertainment tax depends on the population of the village in which the theatres are located and it is matter of record that the population of Jogipet Village was more than 15,000 in the year 1996. He submits that though rule 32 of the Rules was invoked, the proceedings are traceable to the power under rule 27 (13) of the Rules. It is his further contention that having failed to submit the explanation to the show cause notice, the petitioners cannot canvass the correctness of the demand orders. ( 6 ) THE petitioners were demanded the differential tax, on the ground that the population of the Village, in which theaters are located, exceeded 15,000 by the year 1996. It is not in dispute that the respondent entered into agreements with the petitioners year after year. Rate of tax is one of the important conditions. There is no allegation that the petitioners suppressed any material facts. The petitioners have hardly any say in the matter of enumeration of census or application thereof. Various departments adopt different criteria in applying the census figures. Once the respondent has chosen to enter into an agreement and levy a particular percentage of tax, it is not open to it to act contrary to the same, without varying it in accordance with law. ( 7 ) IT is true that under Rule 27 (13) of the rules, it is open to the respondent to revise the rate of tax, in case, it is found that the earlier levy was tainted with any illegality, suppression of fact etc. The respondents did not choose to invoke that power. The provision of law referred to in the show cause notice is rule 32 of the Rules, which is applicable only in cases of clerical and arithmetical mistakes. No clerical or arithmetical mistake in the agreements is pointed out. The nature and scope of power, be it, for review or revision substantially varies depending on the provision. Once the respondent had consciously invoked Rule 32 of the Rules, it cannot fall back upon his power under rule 27 (13) of the Rules. ( 8 ) VIEWED from any angle, this Court does not find any basis for the respondent in levying the differential tax. Once the respondent had consciously invoked Rule 32 of the Rules, it cannot fall back upon his power under rule 27 (13) of the Rules. ( 8 ) VIEWED from any angle, this Court does not find any basis for the respondent in levying the differential tax. The Civil Revision petitions are accordingly allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside.