Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – s.132 – Appellants displayed their name board of respective business establishment which also depicted the nature of the respective vehicles which were sold and it would be inseparable part of the appellants’ business establishment – The demand notices were raised against the appellants for payment towards advertisement tax – Same were affirmed by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: By mere mentioning the name of the product in which the business establishment is being run would not partake the character of the advertisement until and unless by such display customers are solicited – In the absence of the display of the name board or sign board either by a business establishment or any other establishment, it would drive the potential customer to such a situation where it would be neigh impossible to identify the business establishment from which the potential customer proposes to buy – However, if the sign boards so displayed would in any manner promote a particular product or goods or services or in other words it would attract customers to purchase a particular brand of product or goods or services and such display provides information about the product/ services and solicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while the latter would only be an information to the public – The statutory provisions does not empower the Municipal Corporation or its agency to demand tax for display of information through name boards or display boards – It would emerge from the statutory provisions that the legislative intent was never to impose tax liability on sign boards but only on advertisement – Prima facie, the sign boards are display boards displayed by the appellants’ companies in the instant appeals would indicate that they have displayed on their respective premises the general information to the public about the products being dealt with by them and it would not reflect any soliciting of customers or induce the general public to buy the products dealt by the appellants and displayed on the board – In the instant case, on the demand being raised both the appellants had objected to the same and even before it came to be considered they approached the High Court – Therefore, the first respondent directed to examine the objections filed by the appellants afresh. [Paras 18, 19]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bharti Airtel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh WP No. 2296 of 2012 decided on 12.01.2015; ICICI Bank Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 62 : (2005) 6 SCC 404; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 2 SCR
860 : (2002) 4 SCC 219 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.