HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Between: Kalyani Ads And
WRIT PETITION No.6230 OF 2001
DATED: 28.10.2014 … Petitioner State of Andhra Pradesh and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.6230 of 2001
ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This Writ Petition has been filed in the year 2001. Petitioner has challenged G.O.Ms.No.487, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 20.09.2000, by which, Rules 3 and 3A of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Advertisement Tax) Rules, 1967 are amended enhancing the rate of tax on advertisement. The petitioner in order to challenge the aforesaid rule, has stated that aforesaid enhancement in the middle of the year is bad in law. It has further stated that based on the tax rate then prevailing, the petitioner had entered into agreements or contracts with various customers for displaying advertisements. The customers of the petitioner will not pay now any amount due to enhancement of tax as it is not only illegal but also exorbitant in any view of the matter. That apart, there is no other ground. In our considered view, the agreement is between the petitioner and its customer and that the Government is not the signatory therein. Moreover, it is the settled position of law that a piece of legislation can be challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality and inconsistency of the parent law, under which, the rule has been framed, not on any other ground. Whether the rate is exorbitant or not cannot be examined by the Court. It is for the rule making authority to fix the rate. According to us, so to say, there is no ground to challenge in this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, it is open for the municipal authority to take step in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
28th OCTOBER, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni