( 1 ) HEARD Smt K. Uma for the revision petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes.

( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 9-D of the A. P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939. The revision petitioner had filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), Kakinada, at Visakhapatnam, on 9-10-2000 passed in Appeal No. VSP 9/95-96 (APET ).

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the revision petitioner was an exhibitor of films paying tax under A. P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as act in short for the purpose of convenience) during the years 1986-87 to 1988-89 and the petitioner was paying entertainment tax under Section 5 (1) of the Act. It is also stated that for the year 1987-88, the weekly tax was Rs. 9,226. 00 and for the year 1988-89, the weekly tax was Rs. 14,527. 00 and during the relevant period, rebate was permissible at 20% to 50% for screening second run and repeat run Telugu films, which are more than 5 years/10 years old. Under Section 5 of the Act, the weekly tax is computed as a percentage of gross collection capacity and multiplied by the stipulated multiplier in the table occurring in Section 5 (1) of the Act and in the case of the petitioner, the multiplier was 21 and as such, weekly tax was payable irrespective of the actual number of shows screened. In fact, the petitioner had claimed relevant rebate on the basis of 21 shows along with returns and paid the applicable, taxes. While so, by notice dated 27-5-1992, the Entertainment Tax Officer proposed to re-compute the rebate taking into account actual number of shows screened during the week, which is normally 28 shows and, no doubt, the petitioner had disputed the calculations and no further action was taken by the then Entertainment Tax Officer.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, the successive officer in the office of the Entertainment Tax Officer, had issued an order dated 15-2-1994 which, in fact, reads as follows:"m/s. Prabhat Talkies, Visakhapatnam were already informed in this office notice cited that they were allowed excess rebate for the second run/repeated run pictures as per the details given below:

( 5 ) BUT so far you have neither paid the differential amount of Rs. 23,953. 00 nor file any objections in this regard. However with a view to afford final opportunity you are hereby requested to file your objections, if any, before the undersigned against the proposed assessment within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of this notice, Jailing which, action will be taken to recover the amount as per the provisions of APGST Act. Accordingly a notice was issued to the dealer. The dealer received the notice and filed no objections. Hence, orders passed accordingly.

( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY, even in relation to this order, several objections had been raised by the revision petitioner while advancing arguments. Be that as it may, aggrieved by the said Proceedings dated 15. 2. 1994, the Petitioner had filed appeal before the respondent-herein, the appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Kakinada, at Visakhapatnam, and in the said appeal, the appellate authority had made the following order. "when the case has been Posted for hearing, Sri S Rama Rao, STP and authorized representative appeared before me and stated that the assessment under APET Act is required to be made every quarter and passing of consolidated orders for three years is unjust because it does not contain the total amount of tax assessed, amount paid and the balance due, that show-cause notices were issued separately for each of the Years 1987-88, 1988-89 on 26-5-1992 and the appellants were under the impression that further action was dropped on the basis of the details furnished by them in reply to the show-cause notices and that they received final assessment proceedings after a lapse of four years and that therefore, the assessment made for all the three years are time barred. He has finall