TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the demand and recovery of advertisement tax for the period after the omission of the enabling municipal provisions could survive in law. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount deposited towards advertisement tax for the relevant period, subject to unjust enrichment.
Issue (i): Whether the demand and recovery of advertisement tax for the period after the omission of the enabling municipal provisions could survive in law.
Analysis: The levy of advertisement tax was tested against the constitutional and statutory changes brought about by the 101st Constitutional Amendment and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Once the relevant enabling provisions stood omitted, the municipal authority could not continue to assert taxing power for the disputed period. The prior decisions holding that the State and the municipality lacked legislative and statutory competence to levy or collect advertisement tax after the change in law were followed, and no contrary authority was shown.
Conclusion: The demand notice and the consequential recovery certificate for the disputed period were liable to be quashed, and the challenge to the levy succeeded.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount deposited towards advertisement tax for the relevant period, subject to unjust enrichment.
Analysis: Since the levy itself could not be sustained for the period after the statutory change, the amount collected towards advertisement tax was not legally retainable. The refund claim was accepted in principle, but the Court preserved the limitation flowing from unjust enrichment and directed computation and payment accordingly within the stipulated time.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the deposited amount, subject to unjust enrichment.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in substance, the impugned tax recovery was set aside, and refund relief was granted with the stated limitation on enrichment.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the statutory and constitutional basis for advertisement tax stood withdrawn, the municipality lacked competence to levy or recover it, and any collection made thereafter was refundable subject to the bar of unjust enrichment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
