In a point of interest administering conveyed on October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court in the case Patna Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. M/S Tribro Advertisement Bureau & Ors. tended to the issue of whether a civil enterprise can force charges or sovereignties on notices without legitimate authoritative specialist. The Patna Municipal Corporation had already requested eminences from sponsors, raising the rate from ₹1 per square foot to ₹10 per square foot. This choice had started legitimate challenges, basically concerning whether the corporation's activities were legitimately advocated.
The center debate spun around whether the eminences imposed by the enterprise may be classified as a charge, which would require statutory authorization. The respondents, M/S Tribro Advertisement Bureau and others, fought that the burden of eminences was illicit since it needed appropriate administrative backing and abused Article 265 of the Structure, which disallows the collection of charges without legitimate specialist.
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court determined that the royalties were not taxes, but rather fees for the right to use public venues for advertising. The court distinguished between taxes, which require statutory underpinning, and royalties, which are contractual payments for state-granted advantages. The court also affirmed the corporation's ability to levy royalties, as long as they were reasonable and did not serve as a disguised tax.
However, the court overturned the corporation's penalty for late payments, citing a lack of legislative basis. The decision stressed the significance of distinguishing between regulatory fees and taxes to ensure that public organizations function within their legal boundaries.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Supreme Court Patna Municipal Corporation advertisement royalties taxation Article 265 municipal law penalties legislative authority public space advertising
