Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) The Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. had its Head Office at Kanpur. It is alleged that on 1st August, 1973 it opened a breach of the Bank at Barhalganj in the district of Gorakhpur. In February, 1975 the Bank received a notice from the Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur, calling upon it to pay circumstances and Property Tax at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per year for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973 74 and 1974-75. In all a sum of Rs. 10,000 was demanded. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come to this Court. The writ petition raises several points but one of them is sufficient for its disposal.
(2.) It is submitted that the fact that the Head Office of the Bank was situated at Kanpur not being disputed, it was not in law open to the Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur, to levy circumstance and property tax in relation to the business carried on by the petitioner Bank though its branch office situated at Barhalganj in the district of Jorakhpur. The against has substance. In State Bank of India v. Zita Parishad, Gorakhpur and another, (1981 ALJ NOC 111 1981 UPLBEC 119). A Division Bench of this Court held : "The circumstances property tax levied under Section 119 is a tax on status of an individual. For the purpose of circumstance and property tax his status as a whole will have to be determined and it will depend upon the income which the person derives from all the business that he is carrying on within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad. It is either a natural person, that is a human being or juristic person which alone is capsole of carrying on business so as to be subjected to circumstance and property tax under the Act. A branch office of the State Bank of India is neither a natural person nor is it a juristic person. Accordingly it is not capable of carrying on its own. When a branch office is established it is the State Bank of India which is a juristic person which carries on business in the area through the staff posted or attached to the branch office. Any direction to the branch office to pay a tax is in substance a direction to the State Bank itself to pay the same. Accordingly, even if the State Bank of India fries on business through various branches within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad, the Zila Parishad has jurisdiction to impose a tax on the totality of the circumstance of the State Bank of India of course, subject to the maximum of the limit prescribed by the rules. It cannot separately tax various branches of the State Bank of India which branches cannot be considered to be persons within the meaning of Section 121."
(3.) This view was accepted by us also in Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Zila Barishad, Bareilly, (Civil Misc. Writ No. 68 of 1980, decided on 6-1-1980 : 1981 UPLBEC 201). in view of these decisions, it is apparent that the Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur, had no jurisdiction to levy circumstances and property tax on the petitioner Bank in relation to its Branch Office within the territorial limits of Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur.;