TATA TELE SERVICES LTD. Vs. SATGHIYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The respondent/plaintiff obtained license from Corporation of Cochin to collect Advertisement Tax for the advertisements exhibited within the territorial limits of the Corporation for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. The respondent contends that he was given license by which he undertook to collect and remit a sum of Rs. 31,10,000/- as Advertisement Tax. It was also stated by the plaintiff that he had remitted the entire amount. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the Corporation has farmed out the right to collect Advertisement Tax. The advertisers are bound to pay the Advertisement Tax for the advertisements and obtain seal on the advertisements before they are exhibited anywhere within the Corporation limits. The defendant/appellant is a company which erected a number of advertisement boards at different places within the Corporation limits. But they failed to pay the Advertisement Tax. A notice was sent to them to pay the amount, to which no reply was sent nor was the amount paid. Hence, this suit was filed. The defendant/appellant denied the liability to pay the amount.

(2.) Pws 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits XI to XI (at) were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defendants. It was pointed out that the plaintiff had served interrogatories. The defendant admitted some of the relevant questions put to them. The fact that the defendant had erected, name boards of its shops and other establishments within the Corporation of Cochin during the period 2006-07 was admitted. It was also admitted that they did not pay the tax. Exhibit XI series and the evidence given by PW2 would show that the defendants had erected name boards of its shops and other establishments within the Corporation of Cochin during the relevant period. The defendant made an evasive statement to question no. 7 served on it stating that they did not have details of any other advertisements displayed during the period 2006-07.

(3.) The Trial Court found that the claim made by the plaintiff is reasonable and probable and hence the suit was decreed. The lower appellate court had a thorough re-appreciation of the evidence and concurred with the view taken by the Trial Court.