Advertisement tax applies to each cinema-screen advertisement, arrears remain recoverable, and promissory estoppel cannot defeat statute.

Section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was construed as charging advertisement tax on each individual advertisement displayed to public view, including cinema-screen advertisements; the screen's focus area was relevant only to rate computation, not to the subject of tax. The Corporation was also entitled to recover unpaid advertisement tax as arrears for earlier years under the statutory scheme, and the demand was not treated as time-barred on the facts stated. Prior acceptance of advance tax did not create an estoppel against enforcement, because promissory estoppel cannot override a liability imposed by statute or validate a representation contrary to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether advertisement tax under section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is levied on each advertisement displayed on the cinema screen or merely on the focus area of the screen; (ii) whether the Municipal Corporation could recover arrears of advertisement tax for earlier years; and (iii) whether the Municipal Corporation was estopped from raising the demand retrospectively on the basis of prior acceptance of advance tax.

Issue (i): whether advertisement tax under section 142 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is levied on each advertisement displayed on the cinema screen or merely on the focus area of the screen.

Analysis: Section 142 creates liability in respect of every advertisement displayed to public view, including advertisements exhibited by cinematograph, while the Fifth Schedule is relevant only for determining the rate. The tax is therefore attracted by each advertisement and not by the screen or its focus area. The size of the screen may assist in computation, but it does not define the subject of taxation.

Conclusion: The tax is payable on each individual advertisement displayed on the screen, and not merely on the focus area.

Issue (ii): whether the Municipal Corporation could recover arrears of advertisement tax for earlier years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits recovery of unpaid tax as arrears, and the earlier Full Bench decision on the same provisions had already recognised the Corporation's power to recover such dues through the coercive machinery under the Act. The demand raised for the preceding years was treated as within the permissible period and not barred by limitation on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The Corporation was entitled to recover the arrears of advertisement tax.

Issue (iii): whether the Municipal Corporation was estopped from raising the demand retrospectively on the basis of prior acceptance of advance tax.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel cannot operate to enforce a representation that is contrary to statute or beyond the authority of public . Any mistaken acceptance of advance tax contrary to section 142 could not defeat the statutory liability, and no binding representation contrary to law was established.

Conclusion: Promissory estoppel did not bar the Corporation from raising the demand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner remained liable to pay advertisement tax on each advertisement, the arrears were recoverable under the Act, and no equitable bar prevented enforcement of the statutory demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax liability cannot be displaced by mistaken administrative practice or by promissory estoppel where the representation relied upon is contrary to the governing statute; the charging provision must be given effect according to its plain terms.

---