Case Details
Case Title: M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. & 11 others v. State of U.P. & 4 others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 45
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 354 of 2018; Civil Misc. Clarification Application No. 7 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:39582-DB
Judgment Date: 19.03.2025
Coram: Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. & Hon’ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.
Category: Levy of Advertisement Tax under GST regime
Relevant Sections: Section 173, U.P. GST Act, 2017; Article 265, Constitution of India; Entry 55, List II, Seventh Schedule; Section 172(2)(h), U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1916
Facts (Para 2–7)
The petitioners, a group of advertising companies, challenged demand notices dated 09.02.2018, 13.02.2018, 15.02.2018, and 17.02.2018 issued by Kanpur Nagar Nigam seeking advertisement tax on hoardings. They argued that after 01.07.2017, Section 172(2)(h) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1916 enabling levy of advertisement tax stood deleted under Section 173 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. Furthermore, Entry 55, List II, giving States power to legislate on advertisement tax, was omitted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment from 12.09.2016. The petitioners contended that tax could not be levied without statutory authority under Article 265.
The High Court, by judgment dated 06.05.2019, quashed the demand notices and held that Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, had no jurisdiction to levy advertisement tax post-01.07.2017. It directed refund of any advertisement tax collected beyond that date.
Questions in Dispute (Para 8–12)
Kanpur Nagar Nigam later sought clarification, contending that the sums collected after 01.07.2017 were not “advertisement tax” but merely “advertisement fees” or “site rent/premium” for use of land. The Nagar Nigam prayed that it should not be required to refund such fees. The petitioners opposed, arguing that the 2019 judgment was self-contained and unambiguous, leaving no scope for clarification.
Observations (Para 13–15)
The Bench examined the 2019 judgment and noted it clearly quashed only advertisement tax levied contrary to Section 173 of the U.P. GST Act and the 101st Constitutional Amendment. It also clarified that only “advertisement tax” deposited post-01.07.2017 was to be refunded. The Court found no ambiguity in the earlier ruling and held that any fresh argument about the nature of “fees” versus “tax” could not be entertained in a clarification application.
Judgment (Para 16)
The Court dismissed the clarification application, holding that the 2019 order was self-speaking, leaving no scope for further clarification. Thus, Kanpur Nagar Nigam cannot reopen the issue under the garb of clarification.
Table of Referred Cases
| Case | Court & Year | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Anurag Bansal v. State of U.P. 2011 (5) ADJ (LB) (FB) | Allahabad HC (Lucknow Bench) | Struck down 2009 Rules on advertisement tax. |
| U.P. Advertisers Association v. State of U.P. Writ-C No. 9389/2017 | Allahabad HC | Struck down 2016 bye-laws levying advertisement tax. |
| U.P. Advertisers Association & Ors. v. State of U.P. (2017 order dated 14.11.2017) | Allahabad HC | Interim order allowed fees pending final adjudication, but clarified tax not permissible without authority. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reaffirms that after the 101st Constitutional Amendment and enactment of GST, local bodies like Nagar Nigam cannot levy advertisement tax. Attempts to relabel tax as “fees” or “site rent” will not survive unless supported by specific statutory authority. For advertisers, this ensures protection from arbitrary levy post-GST, while municipalities must restructure revenue models within the new constitutional framework.