Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sono Vision, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 July, 2025
APHC010196862018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 8536 OF 2018
Between:
Sono Vision, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, (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, represented by its Principal Secretary Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2.Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam,
represented by its Commissioner
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing
Notice No. 0128/2018/ACP-VI dt. -2-2017 (signed on 31-1-2018) insisting to
pay advertisement tax for the name board/hoardings erected on the premises
of the Petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of
the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and consequently declare that
the Petitioner is not liable to pay Advertisement tax to the Respondents.
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the Notice No.0128/2018/ACP-VI dt. -2-2017 (signed on
31-1-2018) issued by the 2nd Respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN
DEV
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A S C BOSE,(SC FOR GVMC)
The Court made the following order:
APHCQ10196862018
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: 8536 OF 2018
Between:
1. Sono Vision,, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, (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, represented by its Principal Secretary
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam,
represented by its Commissioner
...Respondent(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner: ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN
URBAN DEV
The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION No.8536 of 2018
ORDER:
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing Notice No.0128/2018/ACP-VI, dated Nil.02.2017 (signed on 31.01.2018) 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. 15,644/- towards advertisement tax for the year 2017-2018 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, 1955.2
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.
3The signboards merely showing the name of the shop perse 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^ 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 2005 (6) see 404 4 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 Corporation^ 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 Petitioner is contextually in a different fact scenario and the said ^ 2023 {6) ALD 147 (SC) 5 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.
Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. One CC to SRI . ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU, Advocate [OPUC]
2. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]
3. . One CC to SRI. A.S.C.BOSE, Advocate (SC FOR GVMC)[OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies NM HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 8536 OF 2018 ANOW^:|^ r15 JUl 2025 % o>)j ^ Current Section ^ *^aSoespATcV!S5'' DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS