Seeme Network PVT. LTD. vs. The Municipal Corporation Of The City Of Ahmedabad

Held

The Court did not adjudicate the petition on its merits. It was noted that the issues raised by the petitioners were squarely covered by a judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court, delivered on 20.10.2020 in Special Civil Application No. 4358 of 2019 and allied petitions. This prior judgment had upheld the validity of Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Furthermore, it was brought to the Court's attention that a similar petition, Special Civil Application No. 13129 of 2020, with identical prayers, had recently been dismissed on the same grounds. Consequently, the Court found no need to re-examine the merits of the present petition. The ratio decidendi is that if the issues are already decided by a Coordinate Bench and a similar petition has been dismissed on those grounds, the present petition will also be dismissed on the same basis without a fresh adjudication. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition.

Facts

The petitioners, Seeme Network Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the collection of taxes and license fees by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on hoardings located on private properties. They sought a declaration that post-GST introduction, the Corporation cannot collect such taxes or fees. The petitioners also challenged the validity of Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation (GPMC) Act, 1949, as ultra vires the Constitution. They further prayed for the refund of Rs. 7,22,362/- and for quashing of Resolution No. 928 dated 22.11.2018 and Resolution No. 1075 dated 24.12.2018, which mandated the payment of license fees. The petition sought to restrain coercive recovery of these fees and to compel the renewal of licenses without insisting on such payments.

Key Issues

1. Whether, after the introduction of GST on 01.07.2017, the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad can collect any tax or license fee on hoardings situated on private properties in Ahmedabad City, in light of the 101st Amendment to the Constitution? (Question of law) 2. Whether Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act, 1949, is ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 and 243X? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the introduction of GST subsumed the power to levy taxes on advertisements, rendering the Municipal Corporation's collection of license fees illegal. They contended that Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act was unconstitutional. They sought a refund of the fees collected and the quashing of the resolutions imposing these fees. Revenue/State's Contentions: The learned AGP for the respondent State Authorities, along with the learned Advocate for the petitioners, jointly pointed out that the issues raised in the petition were squarely covered by a previous judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the High Court dated 20.10.2020 in Special Civil Application No. 4358 of 2019 and allied petitions. This judgment had upheld the validity of Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act, 1949. It was also noted that a similar petition, Special Civil Application No. 13129 of 2020, had been dismissed on the same grounds.