TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Panchayats could levy advertisement tax on hoardings, signboards and glow-signs affixed on private shops and properties without statutory authority; (ii) Whether the amount deposited under interim directions was liable to refund or was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.
Issue (i): Whether Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Panchayats could levy advertisement tax on hoardings, signboards and glow-signs affixed on private shops and properties without statutory authority.
Analysis: The power of municipal bodies to impose tax is confined to the authority granted by the statute. Section 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is the relevant taxing provision and it permits taxation only within the items enumerated in that section. Advertisement tax on hoardings, signboards and glow-signs fixed on private property is not covered by that provision. The levy also could not be supported as a fee under Sections 293 and 293A, because those provisions relate to use of municipal property or to places to which public access is allowed with municipal facilities. Nor could the charge be treated as a licence fee under Section 294 in the absence of a sanction, permission or valid bye-laws authorising such recovery. Section 298(1) did not cure the defect, since no applicable bye-laws were shown.
Conclusion: The advertisement tax levy was illegal and without statutory authority, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the amount deposited under interim directions was liable to refund or was barred by the principle of unjust enrichment.
Analysis: Once the levy itself was held to be wholly without authority of law, the demand could not be retained on the plea of unjust enrichment. No material was shown to establish that the burden had in fact been passed on to consumers, and the record did not support such a defence. In these circumstances, the deposits made under interim orders were not liable to be retained by the municipal bodies.
Conclusion: The deposited amounts were directed to be refunded to the petitioners, and the plea of unjust enrichment was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The municipal advertisement tax was struck down as unauthorised, the petitions were allowed, and the amounts deposited under the court's interim directions were ordered to be refunded.
Ratio Decidendi: A municipal body can levy and recover tax or fee only when the statute or valid bye-laws expressly authorise it, and where an advertisement levy on private property lacks such authority, the levy is void and refund cannot be resisted on unjust enrichment unless actual passing on of the burden is shown.
TaxTMI 
