This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt. 7.4.2007 passed by the R2 vide ANNEX.G and etc.

Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners are companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, have their registered offices at the addresses mentioned in the cause title, some of whom carry on business of providing cellular, mobile telephony services, while others manufacturer soft drinks and paints, have appointed dealers/distributors/retailers to sell and distribute their wares as well as Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards and to serve the customers, the said dealers are spread over Bangalore city and carrying on their trade and business from their shop premises. In the course of business, the dealers/retailers/distributors, put up boards/glow signs within their shop premises facing the road indicating brand names of the petitioners, in relation to their trade and business including rendering services to the customers.

3. It appears that when the respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) sought to remove the boards displayed in the premises of the dealers/distributors/retailers, for non-payment of advertisement tax under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, for short the ‘Act’, the petitioners having invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file necessary representations with a direction to the BBMP to consider the representations and pass orders thereon and if exemptions are not granted from payment of Advertisement tax, to recover the same from the petitioners.

4. In compliance with the said order, the petitioners having made representations, the Special Commissioner, BBMP, on hearing the petitioners, by order dt.7.4.2007 (impugned in each of the petitions) held that the advertisements not displayed in the premise belonging to the petitioners but their dealers/retailers/distributors, being third parties, with the intention to attract the prospective customers and to propagate ideas with regard to the goods and services rendered by the petitioners, disentitle the petitioners to exemption under Section 134 of the Act and accordingly, rejected the representations with a direction to pay the taxes. Sequentially, the authorities of the BBMP issued notices to the petitioners to pay the advertisement tax. Hence, these petitions.

5. The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of the BBMP, though not in all the petitions, on the common ground that the advertisements of the petitioners are not put upon the premises belonging to them, but on the shop premises where their products are sold for a commission and hence attracts Sections 134,135,136 and 138 of the Act and are not exempt under the third proviso to Section 134 of the Act. It is further stated that under Section 135 of the Act, the petitioners are required to secure prior permission of the BBMP to display the advertisement and sign boards.

6. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners points out to the third proviso to Section 134 of the Act and submits that identical provision in Section 129-A, third Proviso and explanation (2) of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV/1919), in the matter of claim of exemption from advertisements tax, having arisen for consideration, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in V.Vasudev Bhat –V- Revenue Officer, Corporation of Madras 1963 I.Madras L.J. Report 7, held that the third proviso to the said section covers the advertisement and excepts it from the purview of the first paragraph of the provision. It is further submitted that the law and facts in these cases being identical to that considered by the Madras High Court, the said deci