1. The Trivandrum Corporation, the plaintiff, has filed this second appeal from a decree in a suit for recovery of entertainments tax. The defendant in the case is the honorary Treasurer of the Travancore-Cochin Foot Ball Association. The Association was conducting the Santosh Trophy Tournament in Trivandrum from 17-1-1959 to 28-1-1959 and entertainments tax was due from the Association on that account. The amount alleged to be due by way of tax is Rs. 1318-60.

2. Both the lower courts held that under S 413 of the Trivandrum City Municipal Act, Act IV of 1116, read with S.8(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Local Authorities Entertainments Tax Act, Act VI of 1951, the period of limitation for the suit was three years, and the suit having been brought more than three years from 28-1-1959 was barred by limitation and dismissed it.

3. S.413 of Act IV 1116 reads as follows:

"No distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to the Corporation under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might first have been commenced as the case may be, in respect of such sum".

S. 8 (1) of Act VI of 1951 reads as follows:

"any amount due on account of the entertainments tax may be recovered by the local authority in the same manner as any tax payable to the local authority."

S. 2 (7) of the Act defines "Local Authority" thus: "'Local Authority' means (a) in the city of Trivandrum, the Corporation of Trivandrum.

XX X XII

The argument of the courts below was that since S.8(1) of Act VI of 1951 pro-vided that any amount due on account of entertainments tax may be recovered by the local authority in the same manner as any tax payable to it under Act IV of 1116, S.413 of Act IV of 1116 would be attracted and the period of limitation for the suit is three years from the date when the tax became due.

4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that S.8 (1) of the Act VI of 1951 does not mean that the provisions of S.413 of Act IV of 1116 would apply for deciding the question of limitation for a suit to recover entertainments tax, but only that the manner in which the entertainments tax can be recovered is the same as that provided in Act IV of 1116. It was urged that the expression "in the same manner" occurring in S.8 (1) of Act VI of 1951 has reference only to the manner in which the tax may be recovered and has nothing to do with the time within which it may be recovered by a suit. Counsel referred to the ruling in Abraham v. Sales Tax Officer 1964 KLT. 21 (FB). In that case, the expression "in the prescribed manner" in S.8 (4) of the Sales Tax Act came up for consideration and the Court said:

"The decision of the question depends on the construction of the expression "in the prescribed manner" in S.8 (4) of the Act. The words "in the manner" refer only to the mode in which the thing is to be done and do not introduce anything from the act referred to as to the thing which is to be done or the time for doing it. S.8 thus provided only that the manner of filing the declaration in Form C could be prescribed by the rules and not the time within which the same was to be filed. Non-compliance with the time prescribed by R.6 may entail other penalties but not forfeiture of the benefit conferred by the section." (see the head note). This view was upheld by the Supreme Court in Sales-Tax Officer, Ponkunnam v. K. I. Abaham C. A. No. 404 of 1966. Therefore, I think, the expression "in the same manner" occurring in S.8(1) has no reference to the time within which a suit for recovery of entertainments tax can be filed. I hold that the period of limitation prescribed in S.413 of Act IV of 1116 will not apply to the case.

5. Then, the question is what is the Article in the Limitation Act which would apply to a suit for recovery of entertainments tax. In The Secretary o