The court established that the power of the State Legislature to levy tax on advertisement was withdrawn after the 101st amendment to the Constitution and the implementation of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rendering the impugned provisions unconstitutional and void.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

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:

"i) Issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction by quashing the impugned notice No.SA.DAMAPA/KAMSHA/JAHI/33/2018-19/ and 24/18-19 respectively dtd.: 26/6/2018 and 3/10/2018 to the petitioner directing him to pay certain amount issued by the Respondent vide Annexure -G and H respectively.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to meddle with the hoardings of the petitioner".

2.1 Petitioner in W.P.No.15016/2019 has sought for following reliefs: a. Declare that Sec. 103(b) (vi), Sec. 134, the words "after the levy of the tax under Sec. 134 has been determined by the Corporation" in Sec. 135(1), Sec. (ii), Sec. 135(3), Sec. 139, and Schedule VIII to/of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 along with the rules/bye-laws framed by Municipal Corporation in the State in pursuance of the said provisions are unconstitutional and void, and thereby strike them down;

b. Declare that Sec. 94(1)(b)(xiii) including the explanations thereto, Sec. 94(1-B), the words "after the levy of the tax under Sec. 94 has been determined by the Municipal Council" in Sec. 133(1), Sec. 133(2)(ii), Sec. 133(3), Proviso (iv) to Sec. 142, Sec. 324(1)(ff), and Schedule VII to/of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 along with the rules/bye-laws framed by Municipalities in the State in pursuance of the said provisions are unconstitutional and void, and thereby strike them down; c. Declare that bodies under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 Corporations Act, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and any other statutory/state bodies/authorities in the State of Karnataka have no authority to collect advertisement tax;

d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the Respondents to ensure refund of all amounts collected by the authorities, corporations, municipalities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 Corporations Act, Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, and any other statutory/state bodies/authorities in pursuance of the said provisions in the state of Karnataka as advertisement tax to the members of the Petitioner".

2.2 W.P.No.15691/2019 filed by the petitioners therein seeking following reliefs: "i) Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to raise any demand for payment of advertisement tax in respect of the hoardings erected by the petitioners within their limits.

ii) Direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to take any coercive action against the hoardings erected by petitioners within the limits of respondent Nos.1 to 5 for non payment of advertisement tax".

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 hereinabo