Joshi Publicity Through Its Proprietor Bhavnaben Yogeshbhai Joshi vs. State Of Gujarat
Held
The Court noted that a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in a judgment dated October 20, 2020, passed in Special Civil Application No.4538 of 2019 and allied petitions, had upheld the validity of Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Consequently, the present writ application, which raised similar issues, did not require adjudication on its merits. The Court held that this application would be governed by the aforementioned judgment. Therefore, the Court did not decide the specific issues raised by the petitioner regarding the collection of taxes and fees post-GST or the validity of the resolutions, as the core legal challenge to the GPMC Act had already been decided.
Facts
The petitioner, Joshi Publicity, an advertising agency, filed a writ application challenging the collection of tax and license fees on hoardings located on private properties in Ahmedabad City after the introduction of GST. The petitioner sought declarations that the respondents cannot collect such taxes and fees, that Section 386(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation (GPMC) Act, 1949, is ultra vires the Constitution, and to quash resolutions dated November 22, 2018, and December 24, 2018. The petitioner also sought to restrain coercive recovery of license fees and to direct the renewal of licenses without insisting on payment of these fees. The State of Gujarat was the respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents can collect tax and license fees on hoardings of the petitioner situated on private properties in Ahmedabad City after the introduction of GST, in light of the 101st Amendment of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that post-GST, such collections are impermissible. 2. Whether Section 386(2) of the GPMC Act, 1949, is ultra vires the Constitution, particularly Articles 14 and 243X. The petitioner contended that this section is unconstitutional. 3. Whether resolutions No.928 dated 22.11.2018 and No.1075 dated 24.12.2018 are valid and enforceable, and if the respondents can effect coercive recovery of license fees pursuant to these resolutions. The petitioner sought to quash these resolutions and restrain coercive recovery. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 386(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1 Mr. Hitesh Acharya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant is not present at the time when the matter was called out. 2
We have heard Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. 3 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant – an advertising agency has prayed for the following reliefs: “18(A) The Hon’ble Court be p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.