ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar, J. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned order of assessment dated 10.04.2008 passed by the 1 st respondent in Enrolment No.KRM/APPT/001/023 levying tax on the petitioner under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employment Act, 1987 as without jurisdiction. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a public Corporation created under the Road Transport Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) to provide efficient and economic transport services to public at large; that its Head office is located at Musheerabad, Hyderabad; and that it had obtained registration under the provisions of the Act and has been deducting and paying profession tax to the concerned Professional Tax Officers in respect of its employees working under the concerned Depots. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent by issuing the impugned proceeding had called upon one of its Depot Manager i.e., Sirisilla Depot to pay profession tax on the basis of number of buses belonging to the said Depot for the period 1988-1989 to 1995-1996 at the rate of Rs.250/- per bus and from 1996-1997 to 2007-2008 at the rate of Rs.750/- per bus in all amounting to Rs.8,13,000/-. 5. Petitioner contends that insofar as the aforesaid order of assessment passed by the 1 st respondent is concerned, the same is barred by limitation for the period 1988-1989 to 2003-2004, since, as per Section 9 of the Act, the limitation prescribed for assessing tax which has escaped assessment is only four years from the expiry of the year to which tax relates to. Since, the 1st respondent had issued the impugned proceeding on 10.04.2008 for the period 1988-1989 to 2007-2008, the same is barred by limitation. 6. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1 st respondent has levied tax on the basis of number of buses registered in the name of the Depot while no such prescription exists in the I Schedule to the Act. 7. 6. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 1 st respondent has levied tax on the basis of number of buses registered in the name of the Depot while no such prescription exists in the I Schedule to the Act. 7. It is also contended that since, the petitioner Head Office at Musheerabad, Hyderabad is registered under the provisions of the Act, each of the Depot need not be registered and the Depot Manager who is overseeing the operations of the said Depot cannot be considered ‘as holder of permit’ for being subjected to tax. It is contended that in respect of buses of the petitioner are concerned, the same are owned by the Corporation and as such it is only the Corporation at its Head office would be liable to pay tax and not each of the Depot. 8. Petitioner further contends that the 1 st respondent without considering that the petitioner is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, had erroneously compared the petitioner with a private Transport Company for being subjected to profession Tax. 9. Per contra, learned Special Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order. 10. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 11. Firstly, it is to be noted that the petitioner being a Corporation formed by the State Government though registered as separate entity, such registration would have to be considered as a registration under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 1956. 12. Further, the petitioner being a registered dealer under the provisions of the APGST Act at the relevant time and thereafter under the AP VAT Act would have to be considered as liable to pay profession tax under Entry 8 of I Schedule to the Act. In the alternative, if the petitioner does not have any registration under the APGST Act/VAT Act, it would be covered by Entry 20 of the 1 st Schedule to the Act. In either of the cases the profession Tax payable is in a sum of Rs.2,500/- per annum. 13. In the alternative, if the petitioner does not have any registration under the APGST Act/VAT Act, it would be covered by Entry 20 of the 1 st Schedule to the Act. In either of the cases the profession Tax payable is in a sum of Rs.2,500/- per annum. 13. Though on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that its Head Office at Musheerabad, Hyderabad being registered under the provisions of profession tax there is no requirement to pay profession tax in respect of each of the Depot, the said issue is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 254 wherein the Apex Court had held that the definition of the word ‘person’ in the Act and also Explanation I of the 1 st Schedule of the Act is not intended to tax a person at a rate higher than Rs.2,500/- per annum, per person, but to treat even a branch or other corporate body, any society, club or association as a separate person and therefore a separate assessee within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. 14. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra) each branch would have to be treated as a separate person. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since, its Head Office at Musheerabad, Hyderabad having paid profession tax under the Act, there is no requirement to obtain registration/enrolment for each of its Depot and to pay tax under the Act cannot be accepted as valid claim for it to be sustained. Thus, the contention of the petitioner on this ground is liable to be rejected. 15. Insofar as the levy of profession tax by the impugned proceeding whereunder the 1st respondent had claimed of petitioner being liable to pay tax under the Act for the period 1988-1989 to 2007-2008 is concerned, it would be useful to refer to Section 9 of the Act which deals with assessment of escaped or under assessed tax which reads as under: “9. If for any reason any tax payable under this Act, has escaped assessment or has been under assessed or assessed at a lower rate than the rate at which it is assessable, the assessing authority may at any time within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to assess or reassess the tax, as the case may be, to the best of its judgment after issuing a notice to the assessee concerned and after making such enquiry as it considers necessary. Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged if such tax had not escaped assessment or, as the case may be, had not been under assessed or assessed at the rate lower than the rate at which it was assessable.” 16. A reading of the Section would clearly show that the limitation prescribed under the Act for causing assessment of escaped or under assessed tax is four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. Since, by the impugned proceeding the 1st respondent seeks to levy and collect tax for the period 1988-1989 to 2007-2008 on the ground that the petitioner’s depot at Sirisilla had failed to pay tax, the same would mean the 1 st respondent authority seeking to assess the petitioner in respect of escaped tax. 17. Since, the 1st respondent authority is seeking to assess the petitioner in respect of escaped tax, the limitation as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act would stand attracted and the authority cannot levy tax beyond a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which tax relates. As the impugned proceeding is dated 10.04.2008, the four year period can only be from the period 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 and cannot go beyond the said period of four years. Thus, the impugned demand for the period 1988-1989 to 2003-2004 is clearly barred by limitation prescribed under the Act and thus, the same cannot be sustained. 18. Further, the 1 st respondent by the impugned assessment seeks to levy profession tax on the petitioner’s depot at Sircilla as per the information available in Form II application on the basis of number of buses held by the said Depot. 18. Further, the 1 st respondent by the impugned assessment seeks to levy profession tax on the petitioner’s depot at Sircilla as per the information available in Form II application on the basis of number of buses held by the said Depot. However, a perusal of the 1 st Schedule to the Act, nowhere prescribes payment of tax on the basis of per bus rate. Though the 1 st respondent in the impugned order had referred to the provisions of the Act and the Rules, insofar as the levy of tax is concerned, such levy can only be made at the rates as prescribed in the Schedule. Inasmuch as the Schedule does not prescribe any rate on per bus basis, this Court is unable to discern the basis adopted by the 1 st respondent authority in arriving at the amount of tax due from the petitioner while issuing the impugned proceeding. 19. Further, it is also to be noted that in respect of buses owned by the petitioner is concerned, permit of such buses is taken in the name of the Corporation and thus, it is the petitioner Corporation which would have to be treated as ‘person’ and not Depot Manager, merely because certain buses are allotted to the said Depot. Though it is contended that in terms of G.O.Ms. No.801 Revenue (CT.III) Department dated 18.07.2003, the Transport Commissioner, A.P. being appointed as collecting agent for the purpose of profession tax, it is to be noted that since such appointment is in respect of vehicles that are being brought for registration under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act by the Transport companies and transport contractors, the same in the considered view of this Court, cannot be made applicable in respect of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner Corporation. 20. In view of the above, the impugned assessment order for the period 1988-1989 to 2003-2004 is set aside as barred by time. Insofar as the impugned order seeking to levy tax on the basis of tax per bus is concerned, inasmuch as the 1 st Schedule to the Act does not prescribe such rate and also the G.O. Ms. No. 801 Revenue (CT.III) Department dated 18.07.2003 being not applicable to the petitioner as noted above, this Court is of the view that the impugned levy cannot be sustained. 21. No. 801 Revenue (CT.III) Department dated 18.07.2003 being not applicable to the petitioner as noted above, this Court is of the view that the impugned levy cannot be sustained. 21. However, it is to be noted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Karnataka Bank Ltd. (supra) each of the petitioner depot would have to be considered as a separate person requiring to pay profession tax at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per annum. 22. In the light of the above observations, the impugned order dated 10.04.2008 is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.