Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Upadhyay, learned standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3.

2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.4.2014 passed in Appeal No. 16/19/20/25A of 2007 and the demand notice dated 20.8.2007.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that a notice dated 20.8.2007 was issued to the petitioner by the Respondent No. 3 to levy circumstances and property tax for the financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07 at Rs. 4,800/- per year total Rs. 9,600/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a small shop keeper having his general merchant shop in village Palthi, Pargana-Mahul, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District Azamgarh. Against the aforesaid notice dated 20.8.2007 he preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.4.2014. For the years 1990 to 2003 the petitioner was assessed to circumstances and property tax at Rs. 300/- vide assessment order dated 24.6.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circumstances and property tax levied by the impugned notice and upheld by the impugned appellate order is wholly without authority of law inasmuch as Article 276 of the Constitution of India permits the levy to a maximum of Rs. 2500/- per annum while circumstances and property tax imposed by Respondent No. 3 is Rs. 4,800/- per annum. Thus imposition of tax by the Respondent No. 3 beyond the limit fixed under Article 276 of the Constitution of India, is wholly invalid. He relies upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner, Quilon Municipality v. Harrisons and Crosfield Ltd. Quilon, 1965 AIR (SC) 1174 paragraph Nos. 2 and 14, Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Malkapur, 1970 AIR (SC) 1002, Ram Krishna Ram Nath v. Janpad Sabha, 1962 AIR (SC) 1073 and Poona City Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya Nagesh Deodhar, 1965 AIR (SC) 555.

5. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cantonment Board, Mathura v. Krishna Bricks and Lime Factor, (1996) 6 SCC 72. He further submits that the demand has been created by the respondent No. 3 vide impugned demand bill dated 20.8.2007 for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 in violation of principles of natural justice and the appeal under Section 135 of the Act has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 17.4.2014 without even touching the merits of the case completely ignoring the grounds raised in the appeal and, therefore, both deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the tax imposed by the Respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh (Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayats) Adhiniyam, 1961 read with Zila Panchyat Azamgarh (Vibhav aur Sampatti Kar Aropan, Nirdharan aur Vasuli) Niyamawali-2003 is a composit tax and, therefore, limit fixed under Article 276 (2) of the Constitution of India shall not apply. In support of his submission he relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s R.R. Engineering Co. v. Zila Parishad, Bareilly and another, AIR 1970 All 316, the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All-India Federation of Tax Practitioners and others, (2007) 7 SCC 527 paragraph No. 41 and R.R. Engineering Co. v. Zila Parishad, Bareilly and other, AIR 1980 SC 1088.

7. Learned standing counsel relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivekanand School through Headmaster v. President of Zila Panchayat and others, 2009 (1) SCC 702 paragraph Nos. 7,8 and 9 to contend that the tax imposed by the Zila Parishad is a tax on circumstances and property which is composite tax and the word ‘circumstances’ means a man’s financial position, his