RAHEEL COMMUNICATION Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the above three writ petitions raised common question with regard to validity of the demand made by respondent authorities for payment of advertisement tax in respect of hoardings erected by the petitioners, they are taken up for analogous hearing and common disposal.

(2.) In W.P.No.9936/2019 the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

(3.) It is the common case of the petitioners in the above three writ petitions that they are all carrying on the business inter alia outdoor advertisements involving erecting hoardings, after obtaining necessary permissions from the landlords and also local authorities and thereafter display advertisement of their clients on such hoardings. Petitioners were required to pay advertisement tax in respect of the display of advertisements upon the demands that were raised by the respondent authorities. That in view of the amendment to the Constitution omitting entry No.55 in List II of Schedule VIII to the Constitution by its 101st amendment and consequent promulgation of Goods and Services Act, 2017 the States do not have authority to levy tax as was done prior to the constitutional amendment. However, despite the same the respondent authorities are continuing to raise demand for the payment of tax on advertisement without any authority constraining the petitioners to approach this court seeking reliefs as stated hereinabove.