DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) THE first writ petitioner is engaged in the business of advertisement. The writ petitioners claim to have entered into a contract with the respondent no. 3 for erection of advertisements at different sites to be provided by the respondent no. 3. The writ petitioners claim that, they were not permitted by the respondent no. 3 to put up advertisements in terms of the contract. Since the respondent no. 3 did not permit the writ petitioners to put up the advertisements, the writ petitioners are not liable to pay the advertisement tax demanded by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In course of hearing of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners gives up prayers (c)and (h) of the writ petition relating to refund of sum allegedly withheld by the respondent no. 3.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the respondent no. 3 had floated a tender for advertisements. The first writ petitioner had participated therein and had been declared as the highest tenderer. A letter of acceptance was issued by the respondent no. 3 dated November 23, 2005. The writ petitioners had complied with all the terms and conditions of the tender. The writ petitioners, however, were not permitted to put the advertisements at the designated place by the respondent no. 3. The writ petitioners had been demanding justice from the respondent no. 3. It is submitted that, the Corporation authorities had demanded advertisement tax, sanction fee and permission fees by a writing dated March 27, 2006. Such demands relate to the contract for advertisement with the respondent no. 3. Since the respondent no. 3 did not permit the writ petitioners to set up the advertisements, the writ petitioners are not liable to pay any advertisement tax, sanction fee and permission fees as demanded by the Corporation authorities by their letter dated March 27, 2006. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioners submits that, the contract with the respondent no. 3 had expired on July 23, 2008. Advertisement tax beyond such period is not payable by the writ petitioners. Referring to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Miscellaneous Regulation, 1984 particularly Regulation 9(16) of such Regulation of 1984 it is submitted that, the Corporation authorities have the power to impose penalty when advertisements are set up without permission of the Corporation authorities. The Corporation authorities does not have the power to demand advertisement tax, sanction fee and permission fees particularly when the respondent no. 3 has not permitted setting up of the advertisement under the contract.
(3.) REFERRING to the writing dated July 8, 2011 and the demand reconciliation report of the Corporation authorities, it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the payments shown to have been made by the writ petitioners were not made. The Corporation authorities are represented. It is contended on behalf of the Corporation authorities that, although the respondent no. 3 did not permit the setting up of advertisement by the writ petitioners, it would appear from the contemporaneous correspondence that, the writ petitioners did not deny that, advertisements were set up at the place under the contract of the respondent no. 3. Since advertisements have been set up and the conduct of the writ petitioners contemporaneously does not show that, the writ petitioners have not denied the setting up of advertisements, the writ petitioners are liable to pay on account of the advertisement tax, sanction fee and permission fees to the Corporation authorities. In this regard, the communication of the Police authorities dated February 27, 2007 and the response thereto by the writ petitioners by their letter dated February 28, 2007 have been referred to.;