S. D. Agrawala, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction restraining the respondent from realising the circumstance and property tax amounting to Rs. 4,000/- for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.
(2.) ON 13th May, 1964 the Zila Parishad, Mirzapur, sent a notice to the appellant demanding from the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd., Mirzapur, circumstance and property tax amounting to Rs. 2,000/- for the assessment year 1964-65. Another notice dated 13th August, 1964 was issued by the Zila Parishad, Mirzapur for the year 1965-66. ON 3rd March. 1966 the Secretary of the Zila Parishad demanded a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,000/- for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. Immediately thereafter the present suit was filed by the Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. for an injunction as mentioned above. The suit was filed on the ground that the appellant does not ply any truck or bus on hire within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad and as such it does not carry on any business within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad. In defence the Zila Parishad contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff does carry on business of transport, bricks and construction of works in the rural area within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad. It was further alleged that no objection having been raised against the assessment order the suit was not maintainable in law. A specific plea was taken to the effect that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 257 of the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961. The trial court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. If further held that the plaintiff appellant is not liable to be assessed for circumstance and property tax and that the suit was not bad for want of notice under Section 257 of the Act and hence decreed the suit. The Zila Parishad filed an appeal. The lower appellate court agreed with the trial court on the question that the plaintiff appellant did not carry on business in the rural area but further held that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by Section 257 of the Act. In view of the finding that the suit does not lis and that the suit was barred under Section 257 of the Act the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in this court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has challenged both the findings of the trial court. His contention is that the suit for the relief sought lies in the civil court and that the suit is not barred by Section 257 (1) of the Act. On the other hand learned counsel for the Zila Parishad has contended that the view taken by the lower appellate court that the appellant was not carrying on business in the rural area is not a correct view on the basis of the facts on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I will first consider the question in regard to the bar of Section 257 (1) of the U. P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam 1961.;