JUDGMENT R. L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business in the name and style of M/s. Narang Dairy Products. It has a factory at Ghazipur where milk is processed and the various dairy products are produced. The head office of the petitioner is situated at 7 Windsor Place, Lucknow. The first respondent, the Zila Parishad, Lucknow has levied upon the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of circumstances and property tax for each of the three assessment years 1966-67 to 1968-69. The petitioner's appeal against the assessment has been dismissed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The circumstances and property tax is levied upon a person who resides or carries on business within the local limits of the Zila Parishad. Village Ghazipur is no doubt within the territorial limits of Lucknow Zila Parishad but the petitioner says that is neither residing there nor is it carrying on there any business. It merely collects milk from the farmers of the surrounding area but the sale takes place at various depots within the municipal limits of the city of Lucknow. 3. Now the petitioner being a partnership firm cannot for obvious reason be assessed on the basis of its residence because a partnership firm cannot be said to be residing at a particular place. It can be assessed with reference to the place from which it carries on its business. Now in a business like the one carried on by the petitioner it cannot be said that the business is carried on where the milk, is purchased or where it is processed into various dairy products. The business can be said to be carried on only at the place where the sales take place, otherwise a firm carrying on business will be liable to pay circumstances and property tax more than once at the hands of various Zila Parishads, if any process of purchase of raw material etc. is carried on within the local limits of such Zila Parishads. A business, therefore, can be said to take place where the finished products are sold. The respondents have controverted the averments of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner not only manufactures dairy products at Ghazipur but sells them from there. is carried on within the local limits of such Zila Parishads. A business, therefore, can be said to take place where the finished products are sold. The respondents have controverted the averments of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner not only manufactures dairy products at Ghazipur but sells them from there. The averment in the counter-affidavit is no doubt vague but nevertheless the petitioners contention to the contrary cannot be accepted. 4. However, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on another ground. Circumstances and property tax no doubt is a tax based upon the financial worth of the person. It is not a tax on income as such. But Sec. 121 of the U. P. Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Act provides that a lax shall not be levied upon a person whose income is less than Rs. 600 per year. The income here means net income. The petitioner says that during the relevant assessment year he suffered a loss and for the assessment year 1965-66 his loss has been accepted by the Income-tax Authorities whereas the cases for the remaining years are still pending. The Assessing Officer has not passed any assessment order but has merely issued a notice of demand. From the counter-affidavit it appears that the Zila Parishad has taken into account the gross income disclosed by the petitioner. This is incorrect. It was necessary to determine the petitioners net income and tax could be levied only if its net income exceeded Rs. 600/- in each of the assessment years in question. This view is supported by a decision of this Court in Ganesh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, 1970 A.W.R. 493. 5. It appears that the petitioner has also been assessed to circumstances and property tax by the Zila Parishad, Barabanki on the ground that it had purchased milk from that district. The petitioner's contention before the Commissioner was that it having already been assessed once by the Zila Parishad, Barabanki could not be assessed again by the Zila Parishad, Lucknow. The petitioner had also stated that milk products were not 'being sold within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad, Lucknow and, as such, that Zila Parishad has no jurisdiction to levy the tax. The petitioner had also stated that milk products were not 'being sold within the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad, Lucknow and, as such, that Zila Parishad has no jurisdiction to levy the tax. The Commissioner has held that the tax be levied separately by the Zila Parishads in whose local limits the milk is purchased and in his opinion the sale of finished products is not material. In other words, he has held that a person can be taxed more than once in respect of the same business. This view is clearly wrong. The petitioner could not be assessed merely on the basis of purchase of raw milk and also he also could not be assessed on the basis of conversion of milk into milk products. The taxable event takes place when the products are sold. Even though in the counter-affidavit has been stated that the petitioner makes sales of the milk products at its factory yet this position does not seem to have been by the authorities below. 6. For the reasons stated above this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dated 14th November, 1969 (a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition), and the notice of demand issued by the Assessing Officer, Zila Parishad, Lucknow dated 17th May, 1969 (a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition) are quashed. The Zila Parishad, Lucknow, however, is at liberty to take fresh proceedings against the petitioner and to levy tax in accordance with law. No costs.