Disposed

Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging demand notices for advertisement licence fees issued to a banking corporation. The court held that since no show cause notice was issued, the demand notices are to be treated as show cause notices affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before levying fees.

What did the court decide?

The demand notices issued are to be treated as show cause notices; the petitioner is given three weeks to file a reply before an opportunity of hearing is afforded.

Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1945

¶6

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM 695 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, MR. VINOD VIJAYAN

¶9

BY ADVS. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH NIMMY SHAJI BINNET M.VAVACHAN P.PRAMEL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2 TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, LMS VELLAYAMBALAM RD, OPPOSITE LMS COMPOUND, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PMG THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

3 THRISSUR CORPORATION MUNICIPAL OFFICE RD, KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

4 VARKALA MUNICIPALITY MAITHANAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 141 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶17

BY ADVS. N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION SHRI.K.SIJU, SC, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exts.P1 to P3 demand notices, by which respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Local Self Government Institutions) have demanded advertisement licence fee as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only sign boards for displaying the name of the petitioner have been put up on the buildings either owned or taken on lease by the petitioner, and therefore, no licence fee is required to be paid by the petitioner for putting up signage of their own name on the buildings either owned or taken on lease by the petitioner. It is further submitted that vide the 101^st amendment to the Constitution, Entry-52 to List-II of Seventh Schedule has been omitted and all the taxes levied by the States on the goods/items under Entry-52 has been subsumed to the GST with effect

¶23

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

from 1.4.2017. It is the submission that since the petitioner is not using any public place for putting up the signage boards and the same are placed on the buildings either owned or taken on lease by the petitioner, no advertisement licence fee is required to be demanded/paid.

¶26

From the impugned demand notices, Exts.P1 to P3, it is not evident that what kind of advertisement boards/signage boards have been displayed by the petitioner, since all kinds of advertisements can possibly be displayed by any person. The petitioner has not been given any show cause notice before issuing the impugned demand notice. The petitioner should have been amply supported for an opportunity to explain their case before issuance of the demand notices.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the demand notices in Exts.P1 to P3 issued to the petitioner are to be treated as show cause notices and the petitioner is given three (3) weeks

¶28

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

time to file their reply to the said show cause notices. After the petitioner files their reply to the notices in Exts.P1 to P3 as above, the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing and, thereafter, a final decision for levy of advertisement licence fee, if any, on the advertisement/signage boards displayed by the petitioner on the buildings either owned or taken on lease by the petitioner, should be taken.

¶31

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if any, in the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶32

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶33

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 86 OF 2022

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 86/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PARAVATTANI BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20-10-2021

¶39

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20-102021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE KOORKKENCHERY BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER

¶40

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24-122021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE VARKALA BRANCH OF THE PETITIONER.

¶41

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶42

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 23-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶43

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14-11-2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M/S. PANKAJ ADVERTISING VS. STATE OF UP IN WRIT TAX NO. 577/2018 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Rasheed, Vs State of Kerala

M/S. N.T.K. Jewellers, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Abdul Khader Vs the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs

Ashraf Hassan, Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Rajesh P. a Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

Puthukai Vayaningad Vairajathan Easwarante Kshethra Committee, Vs the Income Tax Officer