APHC010347582013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V 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 Between: M/s. Vodafone South Limited, 6th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory ...Petitioner AND Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupati Chittoor cJistrict ...Respondent 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned Notice Roc.No.2510/2006/G1 dated 18.3.2013 under section 420 and 421 of HMC Act 1955 demanding advertisement tax from the petitioner company for the alleged advertisement displayed at its business place of the petitioner company as the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice . IA NO: IPF 2013(WVMP 1878 OF 2013 Between: Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND M/s. Vodafone South Limited, 6th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet Hyderabad - 500 016 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory ...Respondent/Petitioner 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 dismiss the writ petition by vacating the interim order dated.OS.04.2013 passed in W.P.M.P.No.12412 of 2013 in W.P.No.9967 of 2013 lA ND! 2 OF 2013rWPMP 12412 OF 2013 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 stay all further proceedings by suspending operation of the impugned Notice Roc.No.2510/2006/G1 dated 18.3.2013, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA The Court made the following order: APHC010347582013 I|SJ the high court of ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [gjii.s [3460] U / FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ^IT PETITION NO: 9967 OF 2013 Between: M/s. Vodafone South Limited ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT 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: kr r the honourable sruustice 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:- petitioner Company established a Vodafone Store at P.M.R The Tilak Road, Opposite Municipal Office, Tirupati. While so, the Enclave, 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 Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also relied on a Qf this Court in “National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. MCH^ has sought to be made advertisement and eliminated sign board customers. wherein a decision distinction and submits that the impugned notice, except display is mentipned is at the ^ 2007(1) ALD 312 X' shop of the petitioner and further case that there i and in the absence of any holding the i same cannot be termed as advertisement. It is his IS no mention of any quoting put up by the Petitioner impugned notice cannot be sustained. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for there is no bar for imposing Advertisement Tax and is empower to do so under Section However, in the Counter-Affidavit it i the Respondent would submit that as Municipal Corporation 197 of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act. IS mentioned that there near Municipal Corporation Officer are two large Advertisement Boards therefore, the Petitioner i and 2012-13. Though, this fact i reply affidavit is filed by the Petitioner to of PMR Circle and IS liable to pay Property Tax for the years 2011-12 IS explicitly mentioned in the notice, but that effect. no 6, Th0 !G3,’'nsri '.Rta Corporation would contend that emanates from Section Corporation Act, 1955 submits that the hoarding equated to signboards and therefore for which tax could be levied y oounsei appearing for the Respondent- the power to levy the advertisement 197(1)(i)(f) of the Andhra tax Pradesh Municipal point of time and same cannot be the hoardings amount to advertisement as was in vogue at the relevant IS as big as showroom and the 7. Having heard the respective The right to levy advertisement tax the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Subsequently, sub;tsection (f) of Section counsels, this Court reasons as follows:- emanates from Section 197(1 )(i)(f) of as it was existing then. 197(1)(i) was omitted from the statute Act, 1955 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 Bomba/ 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 segment of public to a product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct in ^manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that or ' 2005(6)see 404 product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct intended to promote sale or use of product or range of products. An advertisement or services. An IS an information that the producer provides about its products 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’^. 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 cusiomers tu purchase a pariicuiar brand of product services and such display provides information about the product/services andsolicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while would only be an information to the public. ” or gooas or the letter 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. " 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. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTJON OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Rama Rao Ghanta, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies. AL vr HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 9967 OF 2013 isocrao" ★\^ent Secuun^ y DISMISSING THE W.P, WITHOUT COSTS