IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24393 of 2008 Between: Idea Cellular Limited, 5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad rep. by its Senior Manager-Legal, Sri B. Arun Madhav S/o. B.V.R. Murthy, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Tadipatri Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Tadipatri, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in threatening to take coercive steps for removal of the boards erected by the petitioner company at its business places, shops etc. without giving opportunity whatsoever as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by Idea Cellular Limited assailing the action of the respondent- Municipality in issuing notice demanding payment of tax on or before 30.09.2008. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Circle Oﬃce at 5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of telecommunication services under licence from the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. The petitioner company has established various outlets for the purpose of marketing various services provided by it. According to the petitioner, the boards displayed at the said business places mentioning about the name of the company and the business undertaken by it at the said place cannot be termed as an advertisement and no permission is necessary for erecting such boards at the business place. The respondent issued notice to the petitioner company demanding to pay the tax on the advertisement boards/hoardings. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S.I.Newton, learned standing counsel of Tadipatri Municipality received notice on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Both the learned counsel submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in Kasturi Brothers, Dress Materials vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep., by Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad [1], wherein the demand notice issued to the petitioner therein was quashed and the petitioner was directed to submit explanation to the notice as to why the advertisements were not liable to be taxed. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of quashing the notice issued to the petitioner demanding payment of tax and directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondent within two weeks from today and thereupon, the respondent shall dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. __________ 07-11-2008 rkk [1] 2007-ALD-1-481