JUDGMENT R.K. Gulati, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6th August, 1988 and the notice dated 1st September, 1988, copies of which have been filed respectively as Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. A writ of prohibition is also asked for directing the Sales Tax Officer, Sector-11, Mirzapur, the sole respondent not to proceed with the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84 against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts emerging from the writ petition are these. The petitioner M/s. Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad Rolling Mills, Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner-firm)" is a proprietary concern of one Shatrughan Lal Seth, which is allegedly engaged in the business of job work of non-ferrous metals and circles. It is claimed that as the turnover of job work was not liable to sales tax, no registration under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (for short "the Act") was obtained, though a registration with the Central Excise Department, Mirzapur was obtained. A notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 21-6-1988 for the assessment year 1983-84 addressed to one Ganga Ram Beni Prasad was issued which was, however, served on the petitioner. On the petitioner protesting that it had no concern with the firm to whom the notice was addressed, the said notice was vacated by the Sales Tax Officer concerned by his order dated 6th August, 1988 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) on the ground that it was issued by in-advertence and by a clerical mistake. However, by the same order, he directed the Record Keeper to get the reassessment proceedings against the petitioner finalised for which a separate action had already been taken in pursuance to the information obtained from the Central Excise Department by the Sales Tax Officer (Special Investigation Branch). Thereafter the notice dated 1st September, 1988 I Annexure 5) was issued to the petitioner-firm, which directed that the dealer be required to appear in the office for hearing on 16th September, 1988. Instead of putting in appearance before the Assessing Authority or filing objections if any, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Thereafter the notice dated 1st September, 1988 I Annexure 5) was issued to the petitioner-firm, which directed that the dealer be required to appear in the office for hearing on 16th September, 1988. Instead of putting in appearance before the Assessing Authority or filing objections if any, the present writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there assessment proceedings against the petitioner-firm were illegal and without jurisdiction, for no notice under Section 21 was issued prior to the notice dated 1st of September, 1988 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Further, in any case, the reassessment proceedings were barred by time because no valid notice under Section 21 could be issued beyond a period of four years from the assessment year in dispute, in view of the bar envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. It was further urged that the respondent Sales Tax Officer had no information in his possession on the basis of which he could have reason to believe, at I least prior to 31st March, 1988, that any turnover had escaped assessment or had been under assessed within the meaning of Section 21 of the Act. 4. In our opinion, none of the contentions is tenable. At the very outset we may notice with regret that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts which were fatal to its case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Even on merits, the petitioner has no case. From the counter-affidavit to which no rejoinder affidavit is filed, it is evident that Shatrughan Lal Seth, the proprietor of the petitioner-firm had obtained a registration under Section 8-A of the Act to carry on wholesale and retail business in Union ferrous scarp and also of manufacturing under the name and styke of Sarvasri Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad, Pakki Sarai, Mirzapur, declaring himself to be the proprietor thereof. Not only that, a return for the assessment year in question was also filed showing the turnover of self manufactured utensils and that of tax paid scarp, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. It is pertinent to observe that no turnover of rolling business i.e. conversion of metal into sheets, bar or the like was shown. Not only that, a return for the assessment year in question was also filed showing the turnover of self manufactured utensils and that of tax paid scarp, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. It is pertinent to observe that no turnover of rolling business i.e. conversion of metal into sheets, bar or the like was shown. After the assessment order was made the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B.) informed the Assessing Authority that Sarvasri Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad - the name in which the registration was obtained, had also done business amongst other, of rolling of 1.6.23 M. T. of scrap in the assessment year 1983-84. It is this business which is now alleged to have been carried on by the petitioner-firm. As no turnover of business of rolling mill was either disclosed or brought to tax earlier, a notice dated 23-3-1988 under Section 21 of the Act was issued in the name of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad and was served on the proprietor Sri Shatrughan Lal Seth himself. In response to that notice not only the appearance was put in through counsel but the petitioner-firm and its proprietor actively participated in reassessment proceedings which ensued as a result of the notice under Section 21 of the Act just referred. We shall refer to the participation in the reassessment proceedings again at an appropriate place. By way of clarification, it may be observed that the reassessment proceeding under Section 21 of the Act in pursuance to the notice dated 23-3-1988 were still pending when the notice in the name of Ganga Ram Beni Prasad came to be issued on account of clerical error. The directions to the Record Keeper in the order dated 6th August, 1988 to get the reassessment proceedings finalised against the petitioner were issued in this background. 6. Now on the facts coming to surface from the counter-affidavit, it is futile to contend that no notice under Section 21 was issued prior to the notice dated 1st September, 1988. The notice dated 26th March, 1988 under Section 21 was issued and served, well in time before the limitation contemplated under Section 21(2) of the Act expired. 6. Now on the facts coming to surface from the counter-affidavit, it is futile to contend that no notice under Section 21 was issued prior to the notice dated 1st September, 1988. The notice dated 26th March, 1988 under Section 21 was issued and served, well in time before the limitation contemplated under Section 21(2) of the Act expired. It is also incorrect to contend that the Assessing Authority had no information with it prior to 31-3-1988 on which it could form an opinion that the turnover chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, inasmuch as, the notice under Section 21 itself was issued much earlier. For the petitioner, it could not be denied that the information on which the reassessment proceedings were taken was incorrect. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the counter-affidavit did not deny the correctness of its averments. However, he contended that it had no bearing on the case. The contention put forward was that the business of rolling was done in the trade name of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad Rolling Mill, while the notice under Section 21 was differently addressed, i.e. in the name of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad. It was urged that because of the inaccuracy in the name in which the notice under Section 21 was issued, there was no valid initiation of reassessment proceedings. In support of the contention reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Adinarayana Murty, (1967) 65 ITR 607 : AIR 1967 SC 1545 and on two decisions of this Court in Madan Lal Agrawal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1982 UPTC 1069 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. V. M/s. Dharampal Ruramal, Muzaffarnagar, 1980 UPTC 608. 8. The submission put forward on behalf of the petitioner does not merit any relief from this Court. There is no doubt that the two businesses one in the name of the petitioner-firm and the other in the name of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad, were being carried on in the same city if not from the same premises and are both the proprietary businesses of one and the same individual, namely, Shatrughan Lal Seth. The fact that there was an information that business of rolling was also done during the year in question, is not denied. The fact that there was an information that business of rolling was also done during the year in question, is not denied. The validity of the reassessment notice issued in the name of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad is not the subject matter of these proceedings, as there is no challenge to it. The challenge is confined to the notice dated 1st of September, 1988, Annexure 5 to the writ petition which is not a jurisdiction notice in the sense that it was a follow - up action of the notice under Section 21 aforesaid. By the impugned notice the dealer had been provided an opportunity of being heard and for appearance before any final assessment takes place in pursuance to the notice under Section 21. The question whether the petitioner could be proceeded against in pursuance to the notice dated 1-9-1988, will depend on a number of other questions including whether petitioner-firm is an independent and separate taxable entity or only a branch of the other business. Another question that may require determination would be whether the turnover of two businesses could be aggregated and assessed at one place in the name in which registration was obtained by the proprietor of the two businesses. 9. Before discussing the submission further, it would be profitable to have a cursory look on some of the relevant statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to understand the scheme of the Act. Section 3 of the Act is the charging Section which lays down the incidence of tax. Sub-section (1) thereof casts a liability to pay tax upon every dealer for each assessment year. It says, subject to the provisions of the Act every dealer shall for each assessment year pay a tax at the rates provided by or under Section 3-A and Section 3-D on his turnover of Sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, which shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub- section (2) of Section 3 speaks of exemption limit and contains a provision which is in the nature of exception to sub-section (1) of Section 3. That sub-section inter alia provides that no dealer shall be liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) of Section 3 if the aggregate of turnovers specified in its clauses (a) to (d) is less than the limits specified by that sub-section. That sub-section inter alia provides that no dealer shall be liable to pay tax under sub-section (1) of Section 3 if the aggregate of turnovers specified in its clauses (a) to (d) is less than the limits specified by that sub-section. In other words, it speaks of the minimum aggregate of turnover of a dealer which is not taxable and in making that provision by its clauses (a) to (d) it also specifies the turnover of sales and purchases which are to be aggregate. It is worth noticing that one of such items to be aggregated under clause (d) is sales of goods (except those notified under Section 3-D) whether such sale is made by the dealer directly or through its branch, depot, etc. The combined effect of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 is that it makes every dealer whose aggregate turnover exceeds the taxable quantum, liable to tax. The liability to tax is determined on the basis of aggregate turnover and the amount of tax payable is determined on the basis of not turnover of the dealer. What comes out from these provisions is that it is the dealer who has been made liable and fastened with the liability of tax under the Act. Further, the unit of assessment is a "assessment year" and the liability is yearly, for, the tax being payable on the turnover of sales or purchase or both during the year. This is so despite the existence of Rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Act which contemplates filing of monthly, or quarterly returns and even assessment thereon. 10. The expression 'dealer' is defined in Section 2(c) of the Act meaning any person who carries on in Uttar Pradesh (whether regularly or otherwise) the business, inter alia, of buying or selling and includes, amongst other. a firm, Hindu Undivided Family or other association of persons, which carries on such business. Section 8-A of the Act provides for registration of a dealer. A reference to this Section would reveal that it makes it obligatory on certain dealers to get registered and possess registration certificate for which an application is to be made on the prescribed form and in the manner provided, to the Assessing Authority within whose jurisdiction the dealer carries on business. A reference to this Section would reveal that it makes it obligatory on certain dealers to get registered and possess registration certificate for which an application is to be made on the prescribed form and in the manner provided, to the Assessing Authority within whose jurisdiction the dealer carries on business. The dealers who are required to obtain registration have been classified under four categories, but all of them taken together, only mean the dealers who are liable to pay tax under one or the other provision of the Act. By virtue of Rule 54 of the Rules framed under the Act, the application for grant of registration certificate is to be made in Form XIV prescribed under the Rules referred earlier. In that form the dealer is required to give a host of information and particulars including the names and full addresses of all the places of his businesses depots and branches, status of the dealer and the nature of business or businesses. Clause (10) of the prescribed form requires furnishing of particulars even in respect of the business other than those for which the application for registration was being made in which the proprietor/partners/members and Karta of Joint Family etc. at present or previously had any interest. 11. On the examination of the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules referred above, it is plain that the entire turnover of a dealer for a particular year is to be brought to tax at one place, whether the assessment is monthly, quarterly, or yearly. In determination of the liability of a dealer, his turnover in respect of all places of business in the State whether carried on in one or different names, including those not mentioned in the registration certificate is to be taken into consideration. However, a different consideration may arise in a given case if it is demonstrated that the business in respect of which no registration was sought or was being carried on at a different place or the name, was a distinct and independent taxable entity different from the business or the businesses or the name in respect of which the registration application was made and the certificate of registration was granted. 12. 12. Despite our repeated quarries put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner-firm was a different and independent legal entity or only a branch of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad, no reply whatsoever was furnished to us. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, referred to us to the counter affidavit and in particular to the averments contained in paragraphs 2(g) and 4 of the counter-affidavit. It is apparent from those paragraphs that before the Assessing Authority, the proprietor Shatrughan Lal Seth had filed his personal affidavit in response to the notice under Section 21. asserting "that he never got 16.023 Metric Tons of rolling done by some other person nor had himself done any 'rolling" of the same. Certain objections were raised alleging the vagueness of the information on which notice under Section 21 was issued. Nowhere in that affidavit it was stated that the business carried on in the name of the petitioner-firm, namely, Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad Rolling Mill was an independent taxable entity. Even in the writ petition there is no clear pleadings to that effect nor any ground of attack is taken in that behalf. Indeed, the averments in the counter-affidavit are that while obtaining the registration under the Act in the name and style of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad, the proprietor applicant had deliberately suppressed the existence of the rolling business and taking advantage of that omission or concealment, the plea of the business being carried on in different name was set up in the writ petition to wriggle out of the situation arising from the issuance of the notice for reassessment proceedings. It has already been noticed that the averments in the counter- affidavit have not been refuted by filing any rejoinder affidavit. 13. The case with which the respondent has come forward in these proceedings, cannot be dismissed summarily nor its correctness can be ruled out. The argument of the petitioner that no registration\was obtained in the name of the petitioner-firm is of no assistance to its case. 13. The case with which the respondent has come forward in these proceedings, cannot be dismissed summarily nor its correctness can be ruled out. The argument of the petitioner that no registration\was obtained in the name of the petitioner-firm is of no assistance to its case. The grant or no grant of the registration certificate under the Act or whether the business were carried on by a dealer in one or more than one name, or the registration was obtained in respect of few or all, are not the circumstances that can preclude the Assessing Authority from ascertaining the real state of affairs and to bring to tax the turnover that was liable or had escaped assessment. The liability to tax under the Act on the aggregate of turnover is not dependent or correlated to the obtaining of registration of businesses, although it may entail certain other consequences which, however, have no bearing on the liability to pay the tax as such. 14. The case that the business in the name of the petitioner-firm was an independent taxable entity, if is true, we see no reason why it was not put forward at the first available opportunity when the proprietor filed his personal affidavit before the Assessing Authority, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. We, also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner is seeking a writ of prohibition which lies when there is a total want of jurisdiction. In the instant case, that is not the position. No case for total want of jurisdiction has been made out. The question whether the petitioner firm is only a branch of Ganga Prasad Beni Prasad or an independent legal entity, is essentially one of fact, which cannot be appropriately determined finally in these proceedings on the basis of the affidavits exchanged between the parties. The petitioner shall have an ample opportunity to establish its case before the Assessing Authority in response to the notice dated 1-9-88. In our opinion, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should interfere and interdict the proceedings at this stage. 15. So far as the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, none of them has any application. Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Adminarayana Murty (supra) was a case arising under the Income-tax Act. In our opinion, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should interfere and interdict the proceedings at this stage. 15. So far as the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, none of them has any application. Commissioner of Income-tax v. K. Adminarayana Murty (supra) was a case arising under the Income-tax Act. In that case what had happened was that initial assessment was made in the status of a Hindu Undivided Family. Subsequently, a notice for reassessment was issued in the status of an individual. Yet another notice for reassessment was issued in the status of Hindu Undivided Family in pursuance to which reassessment proceedings were completed. The question which came up for consideration before the Court was, whether in the reassessment proceedings the status in which the initial assessment was made, could be changed. The question was answered in the negative. We are not concerned with that controversy in the instant case. 16. The case of Madan Lal v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is again distinguishable, in which it was held that issuance of a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act within the period specified under Section 149 of that Act is a condition precedent for any assessment to be made under Section 147. Further, if the notice issued is vague, no order of assessment can be sustained on that notice. No such plea arises before us. 17. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dharampal Ruramal (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court rule that notice under Section 21 pertains to jurisdiction and if there is any illegality in that notice or the service, the Assessing Authority gets no valid jurisdiction for taking reassessment proceedings. Notice under Section 21 in that case was addressed to persons other than the assessee, which was the legal assessable entity. In the case before us, the notice under Section 21 was admittedly addressed to Ganga Ram Beni Prasad, the validity of which was not even questioned. The decision relied upon has no application to the instant case. 18. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is without any merits and is accordingly, dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 500/-. The interim stay order dated 20-9-1989 is hereby vacated.