Multiplex Cinevision Private Limited vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh & Others

Held

The Court allowed the application for withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner had sought to withdraw the petition on the grounds that it had surrendered its license with the concerned authorities. The respondents, including the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the main writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of the demand notice or the applicability of GST on advertisement fees, as the matter was disposed of based on the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Multiplex Cinevision Private Limited, challenged a Demand Notice dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. The notice directed the petitioner to deposit advertisement fees for exhibiting advertisements in its cinema hall from 01.07.2018 onwards, along with GST at 18%. This fee was prescribed under Clause 10 of the Schedule of Advertisement Fee under Section 30 of the Chandigarh Administration Control Order, 1954. The Municipal Corporation contended that it was charging advertisement fees for commercial advertisements displayed before movies and during intervals, and not tax. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking withdrawal of the writ petition, stating that it had surrendered its license with the concerned authorities. The respondents had no objection to the withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, for advertisement fees along with GST @ 18% is legally sustainable under Section 30 of the Chandigarh Administration Control Order, 1954? The petitioner argued that the demand notice was illegal as it sought to levy GST on advertisement fees, which they contended was not permissible. They relied on the fact that the Municipal Corporation was levying advertisement fees as per the Chandigarh Advertisement Control Order, 1954, and the inclusion of GST was an additional burden not contemplated by the said order. The respondents (Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh) argued that they were not charging any tax from the petitioner but merely advertisement fees for commercial advertisements displayed in the cinema halls. They asserted that the demand was in accordance with the provisions of the Chandigarh Advertisement Control Order, 1954, and the GST component was applicable as per law on such services.