Hubballi Dharwad Advertisers Association VS State Of Karnataka

petitioners, in their plea before this court, are requesting several reliefs. Firstly, they seek the annulment of a demand notice issued by the respondents, dated June 13, 2018, as outlined in Annexure A7. Secondly, they urge the court to issue a writ of prohibition or a directive to prevent the respondents from interfering with the advertisement displays and hoardings owned by the petitioners.

Petitioner No.1 is identified as a registered association representing advertising agencies, while Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are individual members of Petitioner No.1. They assert their involvement in the advertising business, particularly in advertising on hoardings licensed by respondent No. 2, the Hubballi Dharwad Mahanagara Palike.

The crux of the petition revolves around alleged infringements upon the petitioners’ rights in the realm of advertisement. They contend that the impugned demand notice, as mentioned in Annexure A7, is unjust and unlawful. Furthermore, they claim that the respondents have been unduly interfering with their advertisement displays and hoardings, causing disruption and potential financial harm to their businesses.

In pursuit of justice, the petitioners have approached this court seeking remedial action. Their pleas highlight concerns over arbitrary actions by the respondents that they argue are detrimental to their lawful business activities. By petitioning for the annulment of the demand notice and seeking protection from interference, the petitioners aim to safeguard their rights and interests in the advertising sector.

In essence, the petitioners are seeking legal redress to rectify perceived injustices and ensure the uninterrupted operation of their advertising endeavors within the purview of the law.

The petitioners in this case are seeking several reliefs from the court. Firstly, they request the annulment of a demand notice issued by the respondents on June 13, 2018, as outlined in Annexure A7. Secondly, they seek a writ of prohibition or an order directing the respondents to refrain from interfering with the advertisement displays and hoardings belonging to the petitioners.

The first petitioner is an association of advertising agencies, while petitioners two through six are members of this association. They operate in the business of advertising on hoardings licensed by the second respondent, Hubballi Dharwad Mahanagara Palike. Additionally, the petitioners are registered as dealers under Section 22 of the Karnataka Value Added Taxes Act, having received wide circulation in Form 7.

Despite regularly paying advertisement taxes, the petitioners received a notice dated December 1, 2014 (Annexure-A), from the respondents, demanding payment of advertisement taxes for hoardings utilized by them.

The core argument put forth by the petitioners is that with the enactment of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, the authority of the respondents to levy or collect advertisement taxes has been invalidated. Therefore, they contend that there can be no demand for advertisement taxes following the implementation of the GST Act.

The respondents, however, have continued to collect advertisement taxes under Section 134 of the Karnataka GST Act, prompting the petitioners to challenge the legality of such actions before the court.

The petitioners in this case are seeking several reliefs from the Court. Firstly, they request the issuance of a writ, order, or direction to set aside a demand notice dated June 13, 2018, issued by the respondents. Secondly, they ask for a writ of prohibition or order or direction to prevent the respondents from interfering with the advertisement displays and hoardings of the petitioners.

Petitioner No.1 is identified as a registered association of advertising agencies, with Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 being members of Petitioner No.1. They claim to be involved in the advertisement business on hoardings licensed by respondent No.2, the Hubballi Dharwad Mahanagara Palike. Additionally, the petitioners assert that they are registered as dealers under Section 22 of the Karnataka Value Added Taxes Act and have received wide circulation in Form 7.

Despite regularly paying advertisement tax, the petitioners received a notice dated December 1, 2014, calling for payment of advertisement tax for the hoardings they utilize.

The main contention of the petitioners is that with the enactment of the Goods and Service Tax Act (GST Act), the authority of the respondents to levy or collect advertisement tax is nullified. Therefore, they argue that there should be no demand for advertisement tax post the implementation of the GST Act.

The respondents have been collecting advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (KMC Act), which derives power from Entry 54, List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioners argue that since Entry 54 has been deleted, the power to levy advertisement tax is no longer applicable.

The petitioners assert that the respondents lack jurisdiction or authority to levy or collect advertisement tax after the enactment of the GST Act.

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Zameer Pasha, cites a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No.354/2018 in the case of M/s Selvel Media Services Private Limited and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others. This case establishes that under Section 173 of the UPGST Act, 2017, which came into effect from July 1, 2017, GST is liable to be paid for advertisements, thereby supporting the petitioners’ argument regarding the GST Act superseding previous taxation laws concerning advertisements.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: