HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4210 of 2010 DATE: 29.04.2014 Between:
Bhima & Brothers Jewelers, Greenlands Ameerpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Partner ... Petitioner And The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Special officer & Commissioner, Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4210 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 05.01.2010 and 04.01.2010 in Sl.No.105520 for the year 2009-10 and the notice dated 05.01.2010 in Sl.No.10556 for the year 2009- 1021.01.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent calling for the petitioner to pay advertisement fee stated therein in favour of the 3rd respondent.
3. The petitioner is carrying on jewellery business by erecting the name board/board frames to the shop on the parapet wall by paying all necessary taxes to the authorities concerned. While so, the 3rd respondent issued notices on 04.01.2010 & 05.01.2010 for payment of advertisement fee under two serial numbers for the year 2009-10. Challenging the issuance of notice by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition was filed.
4. A single Judge of this Court disposed of WP No.19867 of 2009 on 31.12.2009 holding as follows:
““(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;
(b) The notices impugned in the writ petitions do not 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 permission 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 of regulatory activity and its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197 (f), duly following the prescribed procedure.”
5. Since the impugned notices are not in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, they are set aside and the 1st respondent is given liberty to issue fresh notices in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 29.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 8 WRIT PETITION No.4210 of 2010 Date: 29.04.2014 BSS