DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the demand for licence and permission fees raised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities for the hoardings set up by the petitioners.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioners, in its usual course of business, are required to set up hoardings for the purpose of advertisement of their product. The hoardings and glow signs of the petitioners are exempted from payment of advertisement tax under Section 204(2)(c) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon All India Reporter 2007 Calcutta page 136 (Calcutta Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. v. Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors.) in this regard.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has referred to Sections 202 and 203 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and submitted that, these two sections deal with permission fee and licence fee respectively. He has also referred to Section 204 of the Act of 1980. Referring to Section 131 of the Act of 1980 learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the same relates to annual budget of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. He has submitted that, neither Section 202 nor Section 203 confers any power on the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to levy any fees on the hoardings and glow signs. He has referred to 2005 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases page 245 (Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd. and Ors.) and 2015 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases page 748 (State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. TVL. South Indian Sugar Mills Association and Ors.) in support of such contentions. He has submitted that, imposition of tax without authority of law is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. He has referred to the demands raised by the Corporation authorities and submitted that, the demands are on recurring basis and, therefore, they are to be treated as tax and not fees. Moreover, he has submitted that, the Act of 1980 does not authorize the Corporation authorities to levy a licence fee or a permission fee. He has relied upon 1992 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 285 (Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantimkumar Pasawalla and Ors.) in support of such contention.;