Summary: Pune Municipal Corporation's decision to increase license fees for sky-signs and billboards to ₹222 per square foot per year was upheld by the court, despite challenges from advertisers, including Shrinivas Sadashiv Paregaonkar. This decision stems from a legal battle over the authority and fairness of the fee, amidst changes in tax laws and city rules.
In 2013, the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) increased the license fee for sky-signs and billboards from ₹85 to ₹222 per square foot per year. This decision was based on the highest offer received during a bidding process. However, advertisers, led by Shrinivas Sadashiv Paregaonkar, challenged this increase, arguing it was too high and lacked proper legal backing.
Shrinivas Sadashiv Paregaonkar's Stand: Shrinivas Sadashiv Paregaonkar and other advertisers claimed the fee was basically a tax, not a regulatory fee, and that the PMC had no right to charge such a fee after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017. They argued that the removal of a specific rule about advertisement taxes from the State List took away the PMC's power to impose the fee.
PMC's Defense: The PMC argued that the fee was for regulation, necessary for managing the city's look and safety. They said the fee was not a tax and that their authority came from existing city laws, not affected by GST changes.
Authority and Legality: The court found that the PMC had the power to charge the fee under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. The fee was seen as a regulatory measure, not a tax, so it was not affected by the GST's introduction.
Reasonableness of the Fee: The court noted that the fee increase was based on market rates and was reasonable given that there hadn't been an increase for several years. The decision was not seen as random or too much.
Retrospective Approval: The court upheld the approval of the fee increase by the PMC's General Body, noting that the legal rules allowed for such a measure.
The court dismissed the petitions, confirming the PMC's decision to charge the increased fee. This ruling emphasizes the role of regulatory fees in city management and the independence of municipal bodies in financial matters.
