By the Court.—Heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for respondents.

2. All these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact and, therefore, as agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Demand of advertisement tax in accordance with Agra Nagar Nigam (Samachar Patro Me Prakashit Vigyapano Par Kar Ka Nirdharan Karna Aur Use Vasool Karna) Niyamawali, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 2005”) published in U.P. Gazette dated 10.9.2005 and came into force on 1.4.2005 has been challenged on the ground that no such rules were in existence in the year of demand, i.e., 2010-11 and, therefore, demand of advertisement tax under Rules, 2005 is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.

4. All the petitioners are Companies engaged in providing telecommunication service. They are Licensed Service Providers in State of U.P. by virtue of licence granted by Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Telecommunication under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter r