LexM/S HARSH AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED versus INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CASE DETAILS M/S HARSH AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (Civil Appeal No. 5362 of 2023) OCTOBER 09, 2023 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the display boards or sign boards or name boards as displayed by the appellants would partake the character of “advertisement” so as to attract s.132 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and thereby the demand (for payment of advertisement tax) is to be sustained. Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – s.132 – Appellants displayed their name board of respective business establishment which also depicted the nature of the respective vehicles which were sold and it would be inseparable part of the appellants’ business establishment – The demand notices were raised against the appellants for payment towards advertisement tax – Same were affi rmed by the High Court – Propriety: Held: By mere mentioning the name of the product in which the business establishment is being run would not partake the character of the advertisement until and unless by such display customers are solicited – In the absence of the display of the name board or sign board either by a business establishment or any other establishment, it would drive the potential customer to such a situation where it would be neigh impossible to identify the business establishment from which the potential customer proposes to buy – 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 and solicit the customers, it may amount to advertisement while the latter [2023] 15 S.C.R. 28 : 2023 INSC 893 28 29 would only be an information to the public – The statutory provisions does not empower the Municipal Corporation or its agency to demand tax for display of information through name boards or display boards – It would emerge from the statutory provisions that the legislative intent was never to impose tax liability on sign boards but only on advertisement – Prima facie, the sign boards are display boards displayed by the appellants’ companies in the instant appeals would indicate that they have displayed on their respective premises the general information to the public about the products being dealt with by them and it would not refl ect any soliciting of customers or induce the general public to buy the products dealt by the appellants and displayed on the board – In the instant case, on the demand being raised both the appellants had objected to the same and even before it came to be considered they approached the High Court – Therefore, the fi rst respondent directed to examine the objections fi led by the appellants afresh. [Paras 18, 19] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Bharti Airtel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh WP No. 2296 of 2012 decided on 12.01.2015; ICICI Bank Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 62 : (2005) 6 SCC 404; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [2002] 2 SCR 860 : (2002) 4 SCC 219 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5362 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in WP No.1842 of 2016. With Civil Appeal No.5363 of 2023. Appearances: Ms. Manjula Baxla, Kapil Arora for M/s Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Niraj Sharma, Raghav Gupta, Ms. Mahima Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Mishra Saurabh, Ambar Pare, Advs. for the Respondent. M/S HARSH AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED v. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. The Order dated 24.10.2017 passed in WP No.1842 of 2016 and WP No.2106 of 2012 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereunder the demand notices raised against the appellants for payment towards advertisement tax came to be affi rmed by relying upon the judgment of Bharti Airtel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in WP No. 2296 of 2012 decided on 12.01.2015 has been called in question. RE:Facts in C.A.5362 of 2023 arising out of fi nal order and judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed in WP No.1842 of 2016 2. Appellant is the occupier of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.