High Court upholds dismissal of writ petition over disputed fees, parties advised to seek redressal elsewhere.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the merits due to disputed factual issues regarding outstanding fees owed by the petitioners to Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The Court clarified that the vast difference of opinion between the parties on the amount due constituted disputed questions of fact beyond its jurisdiction to resolve. The decision allowed the petitioners to seek redressal in the appropriate legal forum without prejudice to either party, maintaining a neutral stance on the dispute over fees pre and post GST Act.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to action of Guwahati Municipal Corporation in trying to demolish billboards/hoardings and demand for certain amounts post Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act.

Analysis:
The petitioners, registered companies dealing with advertisement in billboards/hoardings, challenged the action of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) in trying to demolish their billboards and demanding certain amounts, contending that post GST Act, GMC lost power to levy fees. They argued that fees levied were excessive and demanded without proper assessment. On the other hand, GMC argued that pre-GST, they had the authority to levy fees for billboards/hoardings and the demands were legitimate public money owed by the petitioners. The dispute revolved around the amount due for pre-GST and post-GST periods.

The High Court, considering the disputed factual issues regarding the amount due, declined to adjudicate on the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted the vast difference of opinion between the parties regarding the outstanding fees, which constituted disputed questions of fact beyond its jurisdiction to resolve. As a result, the Court dismissed the writ petition without delving into the merits, allowing the petitioners to seek redressal in the appropriate forum of law. The Court clarified that its decision should not prejudice either party, as no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.

Therefore, the High Court's judgment dismissed the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case due to the disputed factual issues surrounding the outstanding fees owed by the petitioners to GMC. The Court emphasized that such disputed questions of fact should be addressed in the appropriate forum, as it lacked the mechanism to resolve factual disputes. The interim order previously issued was deemed merged with the final order, maintaining a neutral stance without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute.

---