Allowed

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC13 Aug 2015WP/31320/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging notices issued for erecting identification boards. The court held that the levied fee was a tax requiring specific authority and procedure which was absent, setting aside the notices while permitting permissions for advertisement under specific exceptions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notices under Sections 420, 421, and 622(2) of the Act are set aside, and directions issued for compliance with relevant sections.

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

¶3

W.P.No.31320 of 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited,

¶6

… Petitioner/Appellant (s)

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

¶9

… Respondent (s)

¶10

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 13.08.2015

¶11

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶12

	THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEK	ER REDDY
1	Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?	Yes/No
2	Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals	Yes/No
3	Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?	Yes/No

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.31320 OF 2012

¶15

O R D E R :

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of Finance and Gold Loan and has established number of branches in Hyderabad. For identification and to show the location of the said branches to the customers and the schemes being offered by it, the petitioner erected ordinary boards displaying as Manappuram Finance Ltd. While so the 2^nd respondent issued two impugned notices under Section 420 and 421 read with Section 622(2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 03.08.2012 to the petitioner stating that in contravention and violation of the provisions of the Act and without obtaining prior permission from the Commissioner, GHMC, the petitioner has erected the boards and directed him to pay an amount of Rs.16,722/- and Rs.10,035/respectively for the period from 2012-2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has erected the boards for identification of the business and not for the purpose of advertising. He also submits that this Court in similar circumstances has set aside the impugned notices vide order dated 11.08.2010 in W.P.No.10801 of 2010 and states that the subject matter of the writ petition is squarely covered by the said order.

¶18

No counter is filed and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-corporation.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons alike in the above mentioned order, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶20

(a) the advertisement fee levied by the Corporation is in the form of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and it could not have been levied without specific authority and in accordance with the prescribed procedure;

¶21

(b) the notices impugned in the writ petitions do not

¶22

accord with Sections 169, 633 and other relevant provisions of the Act, and they are accordingly set aside; and (c) the Corporation is entitled to insist on the permissions being obtained for erection and display of advertisements, subject, however to the exceptions covered by the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 421 of the Act and to stipulate fee therefore, commensurate with the service or regulatory activity, and in its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197(f), duly following the proscribed procedure.”

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 13.08.2015 dv

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Manappuram Finance Limited, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Yerriswamy, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Begari Neelakanta Vs Begari Pedda Yellamma

Sravanthi Nivas Welfare Association (Reg), Vs The Deputy Commissioner

Shaik Riyaz, Vs Municipal Commissioner

K.Sudershan Vs The Managing Director

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Having its