- (1.) Everybody knows Airtel. It is the writ petitioner here. It challenges several notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. These notices were issued under Section 202, 203 and 204(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. One was issued to Airtel, the others, to, Nalanda Watch Emporium, Jindal Communication, M/s. Rasraj and New Rasraj and M/s. Foreign Publishers Agency. The notice to Airtel was issued on 10th February 2007, the others, on various dates in December, 2006. They claim taxes on glow signs under those sections.
(2.) Airtel asserts that the other noticees are doing business for it and on its behalf being its 'dealers, distributors, retailers. ' In other words, it tries to say that they are its agents. Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has given rise to all the controversy in this case. The substance of this section is that if glow signs are put up on a particular building or premise as advertisement or promotion of the business, carried on there, it would not attract any tax at all. But if a glow sign is set up some where else advertising or publicising any business the person who puts up such advertisement would have to pay tax.(section 204(2)(c).
(3.) For example, if a person 'X ' carries on the business of providing mobile phone service from premises 'Y ', then he may put up glow signs on this premise to promote or advertise his business. But, if the self same service provider hires any place beside the road to the Airport and sets up glow signs advertising his business then, he would have to pay tax. Another question which falls for consideration here is that, if a particular building is used by a bona fide agent of a person, for example, a retailer, distributor, franchisee etc. to carry on the principal 's business, whether it can be properly called the building where the principal carries on business, for the purpose of this section.;