JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. The Order dated 24.10.2017 passed in WP No.1842 of 2016 and WP No.2106 of 2012 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereunder the demand notices raised against the appellants for payment towards advertisement tax came to be affirmed by relying upon the judgment of Bharti Airtel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in WP No. 2296 of 2012 decided on 12.01.2015 has been called in question.

RE: Facts in C.A.5362 of 2023 arising out of final order and judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed in WP No.1842 of 2016

2. Appellant is the occupier of the premises at 14 Rukmini Plaza, AB Road, Indore and is a dealer of Hyundai Passenger Cars and is carrying on said business at the said premises apart from other places. Appellant has displayed a name board with its trade name and business in the premises where business is being run. Second respondent issued a notice on 04.07.2015 demanding an amount of Rs.2,03,850/- for recovery of advertisement tax namely for the displaying sign board at its premises under Section 189-A of the Municipal Act, 1965. An objection was raised to the same by the appellant contending inter alia that putting up of sign board and displaying the name of the appellant’s business would not fall within the definition of “advertisement”, rather it was displaying its own name and business through the sign board as it would be necessary for the general public to know the name and nature of business and the product it was dealing with. Being aggrieved by this notice writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be filed and the Hon’ble High Court by impugned order relying upon the judgment of Bharti Airtel (supra) dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

RE: Facts in CA 5363 of 2023 arising out of the final order and judgment dated 24.10.2017 passed in WP No.2106 of 2012.

Appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and in order to let the general public know the name and business of the company and the nature of its business and its products, appellant company has put up a name board displaying its trade name within the business premises displaying the products and services in which the appellant is dealing and as such the notice dated 04.01.2012 came to be issued by the second respondent demanding advertisement tax of Rs.1,31,137/- and yet another notice dated 04.01.2012 of Rs.51,000/- in respect of another premises where similar board had been put up by the appellant. These notices were duly replied to by the appellant by objecting to the same and contending inter alia that it was not displaying any advertisement rather it was displaying its own trade name and business sign board and sought for withdrawal of the notice. It was also contended that notice issued was without jurisdiction as one of its premises situated at Lasudia Mori, AB Road, Tehsil and District Indore was situated outside the municipal limits and therefore no tax was leviable. Hence, sought for notices being withdrawn.

3. Subsequently, second respondent issued another notice on 08.02.2012 revising its earlier demand of sum of Rs.1,82,137.50 to Rs.46,050. This notice came to be challenged by filing a Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.2106 of 2012. The High Court by impugned order dated 24.10.2017 relying upon the judgment of Bharti Airtel (supra) dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of learned advocates appearing for the parties namely Shri Kapil Arora and Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Mishra Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. It is the contention of the learned advocates appearing for the appellant that impugned orders have been passed by relying upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench of the High Court in Bharti Airtel (supra) which was inapplicable to the facts on hand as the issue involved in