JUDGMENT The facts The petitioner is the proprietor of cinema hall by the name of Kanhaiya Talkies, Mugalsarai, District Varanasi (now Chandauli). He has also got a licence under the provisions of the U.P. Cinema Regulation Act, 1955 ("the Act"). For the assessment year 1989-90, the petitioner had obtained the scheme of compound payment of tax under rule 24A of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Rules, 1981 ("the Rules"). Under the Scheme, he was required to pay tax at the rate of 18 per cent of the gross collection capacity of the hall. In the assessment year 1990-91, no notification was issued prescribing the rate about the payment of tax. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 19908 of 1990 in which an interim order was granted on August 8, 1990 that till further orders of the court, the petitioner would pay the entertainment tax for the current financial year on the same basis on which he was paying immediately the preceding year. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued a notification on 26th of March, 1991 (the notification). It provided different rates of tax. The petitioner's cinema hall is situate in an area with the population exceeding twenty-five thousand but not exceeding fifty thousand and his case fell under serial No. 1(i)(b) of the notification. It appears that after the notification was issued the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on July 5, 2000 on the ground that the Government had done away with the reduced rate system. Subsequently, the District Magistrate calculated the entertainment tax payable by the petitioner in pursuance of the notification dated 26th of March, 1991 at the rate of 22 per cent and directed the petitioner to pay the differential amount amounting to Rs. 2,35,911. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 1085 of 1991 against the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate. It was dismissed on December 20, 1993 on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed on April 26, 1995 and the case was remanded back to the District Magistrate. He passed an order on March 14, 2005 and he again assessed the differential tax to the same amount. Hence the present writ petition. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed on April 26, 1995 and the case was remanded back to the District Magistrate. He passed an order on March 14, 2005 and he again assessed the differential tax to the same amount. Hence the present writ petition. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the respondents. The decision The notification by which the rate was fixed at 22 per cent was subject-matter of challenge in a bunch of writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench. This bunch was decided on December 20, 1996. The leading writ petition was the Writ Petition No. 4124 (M/B) of 1993 : Kisan Lal v. State of U.P. In this writ petition the notification charging the tax on enhanced rate from the petitioner with effect from April 1, 1990 was held to be bad. Though the other notification dated March 27, 1991 enforcing the revised rate with effect from April 1, 1991 has been held to be valid. This judgment was considered by a Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition (Tax) No. 531 of 2007 : Paras Palace v. State of U.P. This writ petition was also disposed of. In view of the reasons given in the aforesaid two decisions, the present writ petition is also allowed and the retrospective operation of the notification dated 26th of March, 1991 enhancing the rate to 22 per cent with effect from April 1, 1990 is quashed. Consequently, the demand notice is also quashed. In this writ petition an interim order was granted on 20th of July, 2005 subject to furnishing of adequate security to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. This security may be released. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.