JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Bareilly is the petitioner here. It challenged the levy of circumstances and property tax in relation to its various branches within the territory of Bareilly. Its case is that the various branches are not persons within the meaning of Section 121 of the Kshettra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam. The Zila Parishad Bareilly had no jurisdiction to impose circumstances and property tax in+relation to the branches of the petitioner bank. 2. The petitioner states that it is a bank incorporated under the Cooperative Societies Act. Its object is to render financial assistance to the rural population of the district of Bareilly. In order to carry out its aims and objects the petitioner has opened several branches in different parts of the district but all the branches are run under the management and supervision of the petitioner and they have got no separate existence. The petitioner relied upon a recent decision of a Division Bench of our court in State Bank of India v. The Zila Parishad Gorakhpur and another, (AIR 1980 A.W. 550 : 1981 U.P.L.B.E.C. 119). This case is on all fours. There the State Bank was assessed to circumstances and property tax in relation to its branches functioning in the district of Gorakhpur. The Division Bench has held : "In the case before us it is the State Bank of India which is a corporation and a juristic person, which carries on the business within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur through its staff posted to various branch offices. Various branch offices through which the State Bank of India carries on its business cannot be described as persons who carry on the business. In our opinion it is neither a natural person, that is, a human being or juristic person which alone is capable of carrying on business so as to be subjected to .circumstances 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 tot capable of carrying on business 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. Accordingly it is tot capable of carrying on business 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 tax is in substance a direction to the State Bank of India itself to pay the same. Accordingly even if the State Bank of India carries on business through various branches within the jurisdiction of Zila Parishad, Gorakhpur, The Zila Parishad has jurisdiction to impose a tax on the totality of the circumstances 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 of the Act." The Bench reached the conclusion that the Zila Parishad had no jurisdiction to assess the circumstances and property tax as against the various branches of the State Bank of India location within its territorial jurisdiction. Here the position is identical. The Zila Parishad Bareilly has levied circumstances and property tax on the petitioner bank in relation to its various branches According to the above decision, the Zila Parishad had no jurisdiction to do so. 3. Learned counsel for Zila Parishad submitted that the petitioner was given several dates of hearing to establish that it was not liable to be taxed in relation to its branches, but the petitioner did not produce any evidence on that point. The question is of pure taw. It did not require adducing of any evidence. The question was based on the interpretation of Section 121 as to whether the word `person' would include a non-juristic entity like a branch of a registered bank. The error of law committed by the Zila Parishad went to the root of the matter and touched its jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad further submitted that the petitioner bank filed an appeal and then a review application both of which were beyond time. Since the question involved in the present case is such which touches the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad itself, the existence of alternative remedy by way of appeal and review loses its importance. 4. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad further submitted that the petitioner bank filed an appeal and then a review application both of which were beyond time. Since the question involved in the present case is such which touches the jurisdiction of the Zila Parishad itself, the existence of alternative remedy by way of appeal and review loses its importance. Even of the doctrine of merger is held to be applicable, in that case also the result would be no better. As the appellate authority has upheld the original decision, the defeat cannot be said to have been cured on its merits. The point whether the Zila Parishad has jurisdiction to assess the circumstances and property tax would still remain to be decided in a petition for certiorari. We are, hence, not inclined to dismiss the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to recover circumstances and property tax for various years in respect of the business carried on by the petitioner bank through each of its branches separately. There will be no order as to costs.