9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (M/S) of 2010, 340, 341 and 342 (M/S) of 2011 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2011 - Tarun Agarwala, J. Tarun Agarwala, J The issue involved in this group of petitions is whether the Nagar Parishads and the Nagar Panchayats have any authority to impose Advertisement Tax on glowsigns, signboards and hoardings which have been affixed above the shops of private individuals. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 1062 (M/S) of 2010 is being taken into consideration. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is a licensed Unified Access Service Provider in Uttarakhand Region granted by the Ministry of Communications, Government of India. In order to provide the services to its subscribers, the petitioner has laid down a network and, in order to connect with a network, a subscriber is required to have a SIM Card (Subscriber Identification Module). This SIM is an electronic chip which stores the data of the subscriber to identify the subscriber to the petitioner's network. These SIM cards are available through shopkeepers, who are not the agents of the petitioner, but conduct the business of the petitioner company in addition to other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent nos.10 and 11 in Writ Petition No. 1063 (M/S) of 2010, Ms. Jyoti Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent no.5, Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for respondent nos.20 to 23 in Writ Petition No. 1964 (M/S) of 2010, Mr. V.B.S. Negi and Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Advocates for respondent nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 1552/2010, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 1553 (M/S) of 2010, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for respondent no.2, in Writ Petition No. 340 (M/S) of 2010, Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No. 341 (M/S) of 2010 and Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.K. Chand, Advocate for respondent no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 342 (M/S) of 2010. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is, that the respondents have no power or authority under any law or enactment either to impose a tax or a fee on Advertisement nor have power to delegate such power, if any, to a private agency. The learned counsel submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s remunerated by salary or fees; [(iii-a) a theatre tax which means a tax on amusement or entertainments.] (iv)a tax on vehicles and other conveyances plying for hire or kept within the municipality or on boats moored therein; (v)a tax on dogs kept within the municipality; (vi)a tax on animals used for riding, driving, draught or burden, when kept within the municipality; (i)[***] (ii)[***] (vii)a tax on inhabitants assessed according to their circumstances and property; (viii)a water-tax on the annual value of buildings or lands or of both; [(x-a) a drainage tax on the annual value of buildings leviable on such buildings as are situated within a distance, to be fixed by rule in this behalf for each municipality from the nearest sewer line;] (ix)a scavenging tax; (x)a conservancy tax for the collection, removal and disposal of excrementious and polluted matter from privies, urinals, cesspools;] (xi)[***] (xiii-A) [***] (xiii-B) a tax on deeds of transfer of a immovable property situated within the limits of the Municipality;] (xiv) [***] (1) Provided that taxes under clause (iii) and (ix) of sub-section (1) shall not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt held that no tax could be imposed unless the statute provides imposition of a tax. In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharad Kumar Jayanti Kumar Pasawalla and others, AIR 1992 SC 2038, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of an express provision, no tax could be levied. The Supreme Court held: "6. After giving our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by Mr. Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold that even in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority can impose tax or fee. In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power." In the light of the aforesaid, the Court holds that neither Section 128 of the Act nor Section 119 of the Adhiniyam confers any power on the Nagar Parishad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said, it is clear that the Nagar Parishads and the Nagar Panchayats do not have any provision in its bye-laws to levy or realise any fee from such persons who are putting up hoardings, glowsigns on their shops or on such buildings where they are carrying on their business. There is another aspect of the matter. Under Section 172(h) of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, a tax on advertisements not being advertisements published in a newspaper could be imposed. This provision gives a clue that only a tax could be imposed on advertisement and that no fee could be imposed. In State of Bihar vs. S.K. Roy, (1966) Supp. SCR 259, Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. CIT, Calcutta, 1969 (3) SCR 742 and M/s Pappu Sweets and Biscuits, etc. vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., 1998 U.P.T.C. 1086, it has been held by the Supreme Court that subsequent legislation can be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put in the legislation when it is found to be obscure or ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation. In identical situation, in Bharti Airtel Limited vs. State of U.P. and others, in Writ Petition No. 7848 of 2010 (M/S), the Lucknow Bench of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
