JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 2000/- from the defendant-respondent as circumstances and property tax for the year 1966-67. 2. From the facts pleaded in the plaint, it does not appear that any notice was served on the defendant-respondent by the plaintiff-appellant before assessing the circumstances and Property Tax for the year in question. Certain notices were served after assessment and they were replied to by the defendant saying that it had no establishment within the local area of the plaintiff Zila Parishad and that, therefore, the levy of tax was ultra vires. 3. The suit was dismissed by the two courts below on the finding that the levy of tax was ultra vires inasmuch as the defendant-respondent did not reside or carry on business within the local area of the Zila Parishad. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant urged that on the assessment of tax by the Zila Parishad and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to enquire into the correctness or validity of the assessment of tax was barred by Section 138 of the U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam. A similar contention was raised before the lower appellate court also and it was rejected in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in District Board of Dehradun v. Damodar Datta, ( AIR 1944 All 223 (2)): (1944 All LJ 318) wherein it was held "Section 131 shuts out the right to take exception to a valuation or assessment, except in the manner provided by the Act itself. But he presupposes that the District Board had jurisdiction to impose the tax. Where the very foundation of the claim of the Board, that is its very jurisdiction, is challenged, no provision of the Act can come into operation. The Court is right in holding that once it is established that the assessee did not reside within the jurisdiction of the District Board, the latter had no right to impose tax." In the present case also the civil court having found that the defendant-respondent did not reside or carry on business within the local limits of the respondent Zila Parishad, it follows that the plaintiff-appellant had no jurisdiction to levy the circumstances and property tax that was imposed on the defendant-respondent. I may add that the residence or carrying on business by a person within the local limits of Zila Parishad is the sine qua non of the imposition of circumstances and property tax on him under Section 121 of the U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam. I may further add that from the case of the plaintiff Zila Parishad as set out in its plaint it does not appear that any proceedings by way of service of notice etc. on the defendant-respondent were taken by it before the assessment of tax for the year 1966-67. The imposition of tax could be said to be illegal on that ground also. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.