APHC010347582013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9967 OF Between: M/s. Vodafone South Limited Tirupati Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9967 OF 2013 M/s. Vodafone South Limited AND Tirupati Municipal Corporation ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 9967 OF 2013 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent in issuing the impugned Notice vide Roc.No.2510/2006/G1, dated 18.03.2013 issued under Section 420 and 421 of A.P.Municipalities Act, calling upon the Petitioner to pay Advertisement Tax. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner Company established a Vodafone Store at P.M.R Enclave, Tilak Road, Opposite Municipal Office, Tirupati. While so, the Respondent issued impugned Notice dated 18.03.2013 demanding the Advertisement Tax. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Mr. Saripudi Raja Mouli, learned counsel, representing Mr. Ganta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the sign boards would not amount to advertisement, but only information to the prospective customers. Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on a decision of this Court in “National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. MCH1” wherein a distinction has sought to be made advertisement and eliminated sign board and submits that the impugned notice, except display is mentioned is at the 1 2007(1) ALD 312 shop of the petitioner and same cannot be termed as advertisement. It is his further case that there is no mention of any quoting put up by the Petitioner and in the absence of any holding the impugned notice cannot be sustained. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent would submit that there is no bar for imposing Advertisement Tax and as Municipal Corporation is empower to do so under Section 197 of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act. However, in the Counter-Affidavit, it is mentioned that there are two large Advertisement Boards near Municipal Corporation Officer of PMR Circle and therefore, the Petitioner is liable to pay Property Tax for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13. Though, this fact is explicitly mentioned in the notice, but no reply affidavit is filed by the Petitioner to that effect. 6. 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 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. 7. Having heard the respective counsels, this Court reasons as follows:- The right to levy advertisement tax emanates from Section197(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. 8. 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. 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. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ICICI Bank and another v.Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay2 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 2 2005 (6) SCC 404 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 about its products or services. An advertisement tries to getconsumers 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." 10. The above Judgment was referred to in “Harsh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., v. Indore Municipal Corporation”3. 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 andsolicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while the letter would only be an information to the public.” 11. 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 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. 3 2023 (6) ALD 147 (SC) 12. 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. 13. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 27.06.2025 KK