Hotel Balajee Palace, Jeera, Secunderabad vs. Ghmc., Rep.By Its Chief Commissioner, And 3 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Hotel Balajee Palace, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated October 9, 2009, issued by the Additional Commissioner (T&T), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). This notice demanded advertisement fee amounting to Rs. 29,574. The petitioner argued that in view of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the respondent authority could not insist on this advertisement fee. The High Court had previously granted interim suspension of the impugned notice. The petitioner sought a declaration that the proceedings and consequential demand notices were illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, violating the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
Held
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the notice dated October 9, 2009, issued by respondent No. 2. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge any fresh notice issued by respondent No. 2, should one be issued, by filing a fresh writ petition. The petitioner was also granted the liberty to raise all grounds and contentions in such a fresh petition that were raised in the present writ petition. The Court made no order as to costs. The operative direction is the setting aside of the impugned notice and granting liberty for future challenges.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent No. 2 can insist on payment of advertisement fee pursuant to the notice dated 09.10.2009, in view of the introduction of GST? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the implementation of GST, the respondent No. 2 could no longer demand advertisement fee as per the impugned notice. The petitioner sought liberty to challenge any fresh notice issued by the respondent by filing a writ petition, raising all grounds and contentions previously raised. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the validity of the advertisement fee demand in light of GST. The learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appeared, but their submissions on this specific issue are not detailed.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[ 3168 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Juri iction) WEDNE AY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION NO: 22832 OF 2009 Between: Hotel Balajee Palace, Pr.No.5-4-149, M.G.Road, Secunderabad, rep. by its partner G.Ramesh, S/o.Shankrappa aged about 45 years Rl/o.57, Jeera, Secunderabad ...PETrroNER AND 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad
The Additional Commissioner (T&T) Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad
The Additional Commissioner (Adv), Greater Hyderabad, [Vlunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad
USM Business Systems Pvt Ltd., # 1-8-31912, Patigadda, Road, Behind Ford showroom' Begumpet' Hyderabad ...RE''.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring proceedings of the 1st respondent in Proc.No.245lAD1/Advt/GHMC120091429-06 dated 9.10.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent herein and co
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.