% APHC010428082018 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: 19892 OF 2Q1« Between: M/s Sono Vision, JN Road, Rajahmundry, (having its registered head office At Eluru Road, Vijayawada) represented by its authorized Shankar, S/o Krishna Sastry Signatory U. Gowri ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration represented by its Principal Secretary, and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, Commissioner. Rajahmundry. Rep. by its ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue a Writ, Order the High Court may be or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Respondent in issuing Demand Notice Advertisement Nos. the action nd of the 2 1064003136, 1064003137 and 1064003610 dt. nil insisting to pay advertisement tax for the ' name board/hoardings erected on the premises of the Petitioner illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 as wholly and 19 of the Constitution of India f and consequently declare that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the advertisement tax. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Demand Notice Advertisement Nos. 1064003136, 1064003137 and 1064003610 dt. nil issued by the 2'"'^ respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU x Counsel for the Respondent No.I.GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ' Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNICIPAL^ CORPORATION The Court made the following order: APHC010428082018 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: 19892 OF 2018 Between: 1. M/s Sono Vision,, JN Road, 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, represented 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: ^5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19892 of 2018 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing demand Notice Advertisement Nos. 1064003136, 1064003137 and 1064003610, 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.16,100/-, Rs.52,900/- and Rs.1,150/- 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. 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 equated to signboards and therefore the hoardings advertisement for which tax could be levied. same cannot be amount to 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 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. was 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. 3 The 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) sec 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." 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 8. 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 sen/ices 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 2023 (6) ALD 147 (SC) 5 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. Sd/- J. SAROJA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fr ^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to M/s. Adapa Ramya Sahithi Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] / ' 2. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] - 3. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/07/2025 ORDER WP No.19892 OF 2018 AND#f7^ % n jUL 2025 m WJ ■a^ . Current Section ^ DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS