- (1.) The petitioner is private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 2nd Floor, 382-383 Akarshan Complex, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and regional offices at Kanpur, Bareilly, Jhansi, Gorakhpur and Varanasi. It is engaged in business of advertisement. It has been installing advertisement, hoardings etc in various cities such as Kanpur, Bareilly, Jhansi, Gorakhpur and Varanasi Nagar Nigam. The dispute in the present writ petition is confined to the advertisement tax on hoardings installed by the petitioner in the city Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a rule in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant renewal and registration of license to install hoardings to the petitioner on the applications dated 8th March, 2011 and 8th April, 2011. The writ petition was got amended. After amendment, the following reliefs as amended have been claimed: i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to rant renewal and registration to the petitioner on the applications of the petitioner dated 8.3.2011 and 8.4.2011 respectively; i(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing the order dated 17.2.2012 (ANNEXURE-12) passed by respondent No. 2; ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 10,44,150/- the excess tax deposited by the petitioner during the year 2010-2011 under Rules, 2009 as demanded by the petitioner by application dated 8.6.2011 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; iii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from demolishing/damaging/removing the petitioner's hoardings/advertisements and compensate the petitioner by a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs which loss the petitioner suffered due to illegal action of respondents. iv. issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. v. award costs to the petitioner from the contesting respondents.
(3.) It has been stated in writ petition that under U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, the Kanpur Nagar Nigam has imposed tax on hoardings and advertisement. The petitioner has been paying advertisement tax at the rate prevailing before framing of Rule known as U.P. Municipal Corporation (Assessment and Collection of Tax on Advertisement) Rule 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2009') dated 24th December, 2009 by the State Government but the said rules have been held to be ultra vires by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2710 (MB) of 2010 which was allowed alongwith other connected matters by the judgment dated 28th October, 2010 by a Divison Bench of this Court at Lucknow. The said decision has been approved subsequently by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 373 of 2010, Taj Advertisement and others v. State of U.P. and others, by judgment dated 20th April, 2011. It was stated that respondents are still demanding advertisement tax from the petitioner at the rate mentioned in the Rules, 2009 which have been declared ultra vires. The petitioner is ready to pay advertisement tax at the rate which was prevalent before enforcement of Rules, 2009.;