M/S Selvel Advertising PVT LTD And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Held

The Court considered the rival submissions and the materials on record. It noted that the dispute primarily concerned the demand of fees for two periods: pre-GST and post-GST. The Court found that there were admitted disputes regarding the period prior to the promulgation of GST. The petitioners claimed no amount was payable and that excess amounts were lying with the GMC, while the GMC contended that substantial sums were pending. The Court held that these were questions of fact, disputed by the parties. Exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court stated it would be reluctant to adjudicate matters involving disputed questions of fact due to the lack of a mechanism for adducing evidence. Given the vast difference of opinion regarding the amount due, the Court was not in a position to comment on the demands or the challenges thereto. The Court dismissed the writ petition without entering into the merits, leaving it to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication of these disputed questions of fact. Any observations made were not to cause prejudice as no opinion on the merits was expressed.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Selvel Advertising Pvt Ltd and another, challenged the Guwahati Municipal Corporation's (GMC) action of demolishing their billboards/hoardings and demanding certain amounts. The petitioners operate an advertising business in Guwahati and have been doing so for decades, paying fees to the GMC based on size and location. A demand notice dated 27.04.2016 was for Rs. 67,16,884/-. The petitioners argued that after the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was promulgated on 16.09.2016, the GMC lost its power to levy fees. They contended that any post-GST demands were untenable and that pre-GST levies were excessive, with excess payments already made to the GMC. The GMC contended that the demands, particularly for the pre-GST period, were lawful and that the petitioners were carrying on business without making due payments. The GMC also disputed the petitioners' claim of excess payments and highlighted discrepancies in figures provided by the petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) has the authority to levy fees for billboards/hoardings in the post-GST period, specifically concerning Section 7 of the Assam Taxation (On Advertisement) Act, 1999, and its interplay with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the promulgation of GST divested the GMC of its power to levy any fee for advertisements. They contended that any demand for fees in the post-GST period was not tenable in law. Furthermore, they argued that even for the pre-GST period, the levied fees were excessive and made without application of mind, and that they had already made excess payments to the GMC. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents (GMC) contended that while the authority to levy fees for the post-GST period might be debatable, the power was vested with the GMC for the period prior to the GST Act's promulgation. They asserted that the demanded amounts were public money and that the petitioners were not entitled to equitable relief due to non-payment. The GMC disputed the petitioners' claims of excess payments and highlighted factual disputes regarding the amounts due, suggesting that these were questions of fact not suitable for adjudication by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.