The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the subject of levy under Section 202 (advertisement) and Section 203 (site for advertisement) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the legislative competence to impose permission fee and licence fee for the display of advertisements.

JUDGMENT

Kausik Chanda, J. - This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated May 03, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the demands for permission fee and licence fee under Sections 202 and 203 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") raised by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") against the writ petitioner-respondents ("writ petitioners" for short).

2. The writ petitioners carry on business of providing mobile telephone service to consumers, inter alia, within the municipal limits of the Corporation. The Corporation by a letter dated February 09, 2009, raised a demand against the writ petitioners for payment of Rs.6,960/- on account of licence fee and advertisement tax under Sections 203 and 204 of the Act respectively in respect of glow signs displayed by the writ petitioners. Again, by two letters dated February 23, 2009 and May 18, 2009 the Corporation further raised demands of Rs. 15,18,123/- and Rs. 24,46,409/-, respectively, for permission fee under Section 202, licence fee under Section 203 and advertisement tax under Section 204 of the Act for display of glow signs.

3. The writ petitioners prayed before the learned Single Judge for a declaration that the Corporation was not competent in law to demand any licence fee or permission fee and also prayed for quashing the demands for such permission fee and licence fee.

4. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing, inter alia, as follows:-

"The hoardings and glow signs put in a property belonging to an individual and not visible to a member of the public from a public road is not chargeable by the Corporation. Moreover, as noted above, Section 203 does not allow the authority to levy any licence fee. On the concept of quid pro quo, it is observed that, the Corporation authorities are required to do certain things under Section 203. That would entail some cost. However, the Corporation authorities are taking trade licence fee. The Corporation authorities are, therefore, at liberty to factor in the cost involved in the exercise under the guidelines while considering the fee applicable for obtaining a trade licence.

"In view of the discussions above, the demands for licence or permission fees for the glow signs made against the petitioner are set aside. The prayer for compensation made in the writ petition was not pressed at the hearing."

5. Before this court, the Corporation and the writ petitioners are adidem that in view of the judgment reported at ( Calcutta Soft Drinks Private Limited -vs- Calcutta Municipal Corporation, (2007) AIR Calcutta 136 ) which has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court by a judgment and order dated July 10, 2019, passed in Civil Appeal No.4639 of 2009 (Calcutta Municipal Corporation -vs- Calcutta Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd), the writ petitioners are exempted from levy of tax under Section 204 of the Act. The Corporation has drawn attention to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2019 whereby the Section 204 of the Act has been omitted as a whole. However, the legality and validity of the demands for permission fee under Section 202 and licence fee under Section 203 of the Act have been seriously defended by the appellants.

6. The appellants assail the judgment and order impugned on the ground that, though Section 202 provides that an application for such permission should be accompanied by a security deposit and does not provide for any permission fee to be paid, Section 543 of the Act authorises the Corporation to ask for a permission fee. The Corporation traces its power to impose such fee to Section 543(2) of the Act in absence of a specific provision for the same.

7. The Corporation urges that the learned Single Judge fell into error in holding that Section 203 of the Act did not allow the Corporation to levy any licence fee. The Corporation refers to sub section