Quashed

Vodafone Essar South Limited, rep.by its Sr.Manager-Legal v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep.by its

Telangana HC15 Dec 2023WP/27370/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed interim demand notices dated 21.11.2009 issued by the Warangal Municipal Corporation demanding advertisement tax from the petitioner. The court held the matter was covered by a previous order in W.P. No. 7579 of 2010, quashing similar notices for procedural violations and lack of opportunity of hearing, while reserving liberty to the municipality to proceed if advised under

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notices Nos. 56, 57, and 58 dated 21.11.2009 are quashed. Liberty reserved to Respondent No. 1 to proceed if so advised under the Municipalities Act, 2019.

Vodafone Essar South Limited, rep.by… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^33e3 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 27370 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vodafone Essar South Limited, rep. by its Sr. Manager-Legal, And authorised signatory, Mr.Ashish Kumar Das, 6th floor, Varun Towers ll, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Warangal Municipal Corporation, rep. by its, Commissioner, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

Mls. Abhay Advertising, having its office at Door No.14-1-152, llnd floor, Thota Madhan Nilayam, Near Ratna Hotel, M.G.Road, Warangal.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and 2 in levying, assessing, demanding and attempting to collect the disputed advertisement tax by issuing the impugned demand notices Nos.56,57 and 58 all dated²¹ .11.2OO9 by respondent No.2) using its own letter head bearing its name and logo) calling upon the petitioner to pay the disputed amounl within a^period of seven days as being without^{jurisdiction,} opposed to the^principles of natural^justice ,actuated by extraneous, consideration, arbitrary, and violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of lndia and sections¹⁹⁷ and¹ 98 of the GHMC Act,1955 and consequently set aside the same.

¶15

¶16

l.A. NO:1 oF 2009(wPMP. NO: 35646 oF 2009)

¶17

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned demand notices Nos.56,57 and 58 all dated 21 .11 .2OOg by respondent No.2 (using its own letter head bearing its name and rogo) caring upon the petitioner to pay the disputed amount within 'a period of seven days, incruding recovery of disputed tax from the petitioner.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY, SC FOR GWMC Counset for the Respondent No.2: _

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE ALOKARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRT JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.27370 OF 2009

¶25

QEDE&.fp"r,^{he Hon'ble the Chref Justice Alok Aradhe)}

¶26

Mr. Srinivas Rao Pachwa, leamed^{counsel for the petitioner.}

¶27

Mr. S. Surender Reddy, leamed^{Standing Counselfor the}

¶28

Warangal Municipal Corporation,^{for respondentNo- I .}

¶29

In this writ petition, the petitioner^has assailed^{the validityof} the demand notices dated^{21.11.2009 issued by respondent No.2} by which the petitioner^{hasbeen asked to pay sumsof Rs.25,550/-,} Rs. I 8,580/- and Rs. 18,580/-.

¶30

Learned counsel for the^{partiesjointly submitthat the} controversy involved^{in this writ petition.is squarelycovered by an} order of this court dated^{22.11.2023in W.P.No.7579of 2010.}

¶31

In view of the aforesaid^{submissionand for the reasons} assigned in the order dated^{22.11.2023 it W.P.No.7579of 2010,} the interim demand notices^{dated 21.11.2009issuedby respondent}

¶32

No.2 are quashed. However,^{liberty is reservedto respondentNo' I}

¶33

¶34

to proceed against^{the petitioner,if so advised,in accordancewith}

¶35

the relevant^{provisions of the Municipalities Act,20l9.}

¶36

With the aforesaid liberty, the^{writ petitionis disposed of.}

¶37

There shall be no order^{as to costs.}

¶38

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, pending if any, stand}

¶39

closed.

¶40

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGIS

¶41

//TRUE COPY// sEcIo FICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Commissioner,^{Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal'Andhra} Pradesh

¶44

One CC to^{SRISRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

One CC to SRI^{S.SURENDER REDDY, SC FORGWMC [OPUC]}

¶46

Two CD CoPies

¶47

(Along with the copy of^{order dated 2211112023' in W'P'No'7579of 2010)} BSR

GJP>v

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1511212023

ORDER

WP.No.27370 of²⁰⁰⁹

1 HE STA 16,
q
.j 27 DEI 20n (,)
}-
* DESPATC -t<

¶54

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION,} WITHOUT COSTS 21^{.), I}

¶55

¶56

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF .IUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ANI) THE HON'BLE SHRI.I USTICE ANIL KUMAR .IUKANTI

¶57

WRIT PETITION No.7579 OF 2010

¶58

ORDER, f f"r^r he Hon ble^{the Chief} lurrict^AlokAradlrc )

¶59

Mr. Srinivas Rao Pachwa, learned counsel^{for the petitioner.}

¶60

Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned Standing^{Counsel for the} Warangal Municipal Corporation for^{respondentNo'1.}

¶61

In this writ petition, the petitioner had^{assailed the validityof} the dcmand notice dated 23.03.2010^{issued by the Warangal} Municipal Corporation, by^{which the pctitioner has beenasked to} pay a sum of P.ls.4,25,7 43l- on account^{of advertisementchargesas} tax within a period of 7 days.

¶62

Facts giving rise to filing of^{this writ petition,brieflystated'} are that the petitioner is a^{company incorporatedunder the} Companies Act, 1956^{and carries on the businessof maintaining} and operating a cellular^{mobiletelephoneservice networkin the} State of Andhra Pradesh.^{The petitionerhad displayed the name/} sign boards or signages on^{which the business outletswere} mcntioncd to facilitate easy^{and convenient identificationof the}

¶63

¶64

name and nature of the busincss ot'the petitioner by its customers. The petitioner was scrvcd with dcmand notice dated 23.03.2010 by which a sum of Rs.4,25,113/- has been demanded from the

¶65

petitioner on account of adveltisement charges as tax.

¶66

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid

¶67

demand nolice inter alla on the following grounds:

¶68

(i) that the impugned dcmand notice has been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry; and

¶69

(ii) the show cause noticc is contrary to the procedure as established by law.

¶70

5 We have heard learned counsel fbr both sides and have perused the record.

¶71

A Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 09.04.2010 stayed the impugned demand norice, subject to payment of Rs.l,00,000/-. The aforesaid interim order is still in force

¶72

Section 114 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 permits the local body to collect tax on advertisements. The liability of the petitioner to pay the advertisernent tax has been determined behind his back. Therefore, the inrpugned demand notice dated

¶73

-j

¶74

23.03.2010 cannot be sustained in the eye of^{law and the same} is accordingly quashed. Howcver, libcrty is reserved to the Municipality to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised,ⁱⁿ accordance with Section I l4 of the A.P. Municipalities^{Act, 1965.}

¶75