LexLINKS ADVERTISERS & BUSINESS PROMOTERS versus COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ' B c D E F G H 670 LINKS ADVERTISERS & BUSINESS PROMOTERS v. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE April 21, 1977 [P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949-S. 136, third proviso, cl. (e)-;;Scope. ot-Adv~rtisement fronting a street put up lVithin railtvay pre- mises Fronting' meaning of. Words and Phrases-"fronting" meaning o/. . Section 136 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 pro- vtdes that every person who erects, exhibits etc., over any land or structure any advertisement or \Vho displays any advertisement to public view in any place, whether public or private, shall pay on every advertisement a tax levied by the Corporation. Clause (e) of the third proviso to the section enacts that no such tax shall be levied on any advertisement which is exhibited within any rail~ay station or upon any wall or other property of a railway, except any portion of the surface of such wall or property fronting any street. An advertisement facing a public street was put up by the appellant adjacent to the compound fencing of a railway station but within the railway pr,emise!I:. The Municipal authorities levied tax on the advertisement. The apnellant's writ petition challenging the levy was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court and this decision was upheld by a division bench. On appeal to this Court it was contended that the expression "frontlng any street" occurring in the proviso qualified the railway property and not the advertisement. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : 1. (a) Since the advertisements were fronting public street and were expos~d to public view, were not covered by the exemption contemplated by the proviso and were, therefore exigible to tax. [677 D] · (b) The word "fronting" qualifies not the wall or property mentioned in the latter part of the proviso but "advertisement". The test laid down by the pro- viso is that the Court has to see if the advertisem~nt affixed whether inside the compound of the railway or not fronts the street. If it fronts the street or faces the street, even if it is within the railway premises it will be exigible to tax. [674 D & Fl (c) The word "fronting" has been used in the proviso not in any legal Otl technical sense but it ordinary parlance. It is not a term of art but one that signifies its meaning according to common notions. [675 D] The Corporation of Madras v. Messrs The Oriental Mercantile Company Ltd., Madras, [1966] 2 M.L.J. 440 and Ware Urban District Council v. Gaunt & Others. [1960] 3 All E.R. 778, 787 distinguished. 2. The view of the single Judge that since the public street to which the advertisements were facing, ran along the railings with no other obst~cle between the advertisement and the public view, it could reasonably be said. that they were fronting public street is correct. On the other hand .. the view of the Division Bench that the proviso would only apply to advertisements of such hoardings whose ownership lav with the railway or whi~h .. ~elone-ed !O the railway is not borne out. by cl. (e). Th~ que<;tton of e~1gib1htv to tax ts relat- a.ble not to the ownership of the hoardmgs but their Situs. [676 G-H] LINKS ADVERTISEllS \'. COMMR. (Fazal Ali, J.) 671 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 325/1976. A I (From the Judgment and Order dated the 3.12.1975 of the Karna- taka H:gh Court in Writ Appeal No. 284/74). V. S. Desai, Sanjev Aggarwal and R. B. Datar, for the appellant. S. S. Java/i, Jagannath Shetty and B. P. Singh for resp. No. 1. S. N. Prasad and Girish Chandra, for the Intervener Union of B India. Nemo for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J.-Whether hoardings containing advertisements C fixed in the premises of a railway station fronting a public street are exigible to tax under the provisions of s. 136 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (Act No. LXIX of 1949)- herein- after referred to as 'the Act'-is the substantial question of law involv- ed in this appeal by certificate. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and the point D raised by counsel for the appellant is one of first impression and undoubtedly requires serious consideration. The appellant is a firm of advertising commercial goods and other items by putting up hoardings containing advertisements on properties taken on lease or l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.