- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - State of Punjab, Director Local Government and the Municipal Council, Pathankot respectively to ensure that advertising tax be charged at the government rate by the contractor-respondent No. 5. Firstly, it was sought to be argued that the petitioner has already entered into an agreement with the Pathankot Improvement Trust-respondent No. 4 and the advertising tax is payable by the Improvement Trust. The aforesaid argument could not have prevailed because the petitioner owed tax liability to the Municipal Council, Pathankot-respondent No. 3 and not to the Improvement Trust-respondent No. 4. It was then sought to be submitted that the contractor-respondent No. 5 is charging advertising tax more than the rate fixed by the Municipal Council/State Government. From the record it is not clear whether respondent No. 5 has been appointed as a contractor. All that has been placed on record is the notice inviting applications for appointment of a contractor to collect advertisement tax on contract basis for the period 2009-10 and 2011-12 (P-1). There is also nothing on record to suggest that tax more than the rate fixed by the Municipal Council/State Government has been charged. Therefore, even this argument is wholly premature and would not warrant acceptance.
(2.) In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition by placing on record all the relevant documents and the proof of paying advertising tax more than the rate fixed by the Municipal Council/State Government. The cost is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited with the Member Secretary, Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.;