Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Sono Vision, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 July, 2025
APHC010429112018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 19933 OF 2018
Between:
1. M/s Sono Vision,, Near Kotipalli Bus Stand, Rajahmundry,
(having its registered head office At Eluru Road, Vijayawada)
represented by its authorized signatory U. Gowri Shankar, S/o
Krishna Sastry
...Petitioner
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, Rep. by its
Commissioner.
...Respondent(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner: ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S): ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI
NAIDU,GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.19933 of 2018
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing demand Notice Advertisement Nos.1064003140, 1064003141 and 1064005081, dated - Nil, insisting the Petitioner to pay advertisement tax for the name boards/hoardings erected on the premises of the Petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-
The Petitioner is involved in the business of sale of electronic products and is running his business at various locations in the State. While so, a demand notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon the Petitioner to pay Rs.78,200/-, Rs.92,000/- and Rs.2,300/- respectively towards advertisement tax for the year 2017-18 for the advertisement displayed by the Petitioner by way of hoardings/boards. It is stated that the hoardings/advertisements were erected by the Petitioner in their own premises and therefore the same cannot be termed to be 'advertisement', but it is only an information to the general public about the location of the showroom/shop. It was also contended that the Respondent authority has no power to levy the tax under Sections 420 and 421 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. 3
3. No Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Respondent authorities.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Corporation would contend that the power to levy the advertisement tax emanates from Section 197(1)(i)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as was in vogue at the relevant point of time and submits that the photograph filed along with the Writ Petition would show that the hoarding is as big as showroom and the same cannot be equated to signboards and therefore the hoardings amount to advertisement for which tax could be levied.
5. Having heard the respective counsels, this Court reasons as follows:-
The right to levy advertisement tax emanates from Section 197(1)(i)(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as it was existing then. Subsequently, sub-section (f) of Section 197(1)(i) was omitted from the statute vide Act 9 of 2020 dated 03.01.2020. However, the period in question is anterior to 03.01.2020.
6. The question as to whether a signboard/hoarding would attract advertisement tax or not, depends on the intent to solicit customers or merely providing information about the location of the shops. 4 The signboards merely showing the name of the shop per se cannot be amount to advertisement, but only an information to the customer regarding the location of the showroom/shop. However, if the signboards so displayed are with an intent to promote a particular product or goods or services with an intent to attract customers to purchase goods in the shop, it would amount to advertisement. The hoarding shown in the photograph filed along with the Writ Petition is independent of the signboard and the hoarding shows various products that are being offered for sale in the said shop.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank and another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 1 explained as to what amounts to an advertisement. After referring to the dictionary meaning of the term "advertisement" held at Paragraph 15 that advertisement is a matter that draws the attention of the public intended for potential customers. The Paragraph 15 thereof reads as under;
"15. An advertisement is a matter that draws attention of the public or segment of public to a product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct intended to promote sale or use of product or range of products. An advertisement is an information that the producer provides 1 2005 (6) SCC 404 5 about its products or services. An advertisement tries to get consumers to buy a product or a service. An advertisement is generally of goods and services and is an information intended for the potential customers and not a mere display of the name of the company unless the same happens to be a trade mark or trade name."
8. The above Judgment was referred to in Harsh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., v. Indore Municipal Corporation2. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering whether a signboard amounts to an advertisement. It was held that even signboards with an intent to solicit customers may amount to advertisement. The relevant portion of Paragraph 18 is extracted below;
".......However, if the sign boards so displayed would in any manner promote a particular product or goods or services or in other words it would attract customers to purchase a particular brand of product or goods or services and such display provides information about the product/services and solicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while the letter would only be an information to the public."
9. In this case, as stated above a hoarding disclosing the products sold in the showroom and independent of the signboard. In the opinion of this Court, the same amounts to an advertisement warranting the impugned tax. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2 2023 (6) ALD 147 (SC) 6 Petitioner is contextually in a different fact scenario and the said Judgment was rendered in the context of requirement to take license under Section 421 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 to erect signboards.
10. In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the demand made by the Respondent-Corporation is in consonance with the statutory provisions and therefore is not inclined to interfere with the impugned demand notice.
11. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 01.07.2025 IS 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19933 of 2018 Date: 01.07.2025 IS