THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.24749 of 2011 Dated 05th September, 2011 Between: M/s.Vodafone Essar South Limited …Petitioner And The Narasaraopet Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Narasaraopet, Guntur District …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for respondents: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice bearing Roc.No.1962/G1/2008, dated 28.02.2011, of the respondent, whereby it has demanded a sum of Rs.57,814/- towards the fees for hoardings/boards erected by the petitioner. I have heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing for the respondent. The petitioner is a mobile company, which has its retail outlets and franchise shops at various places within the area of the respondent. It is its pleaded case that at the business premises in respect of all these places, boards indicating the nature and place of business have been erected. The grievance of the petitioner is that without a prior notice, the respondent has issued the impugned demand treating these boards as hoardings. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the boards erected by it do not fall within the expression of “hoardings” or “other advertisement boards” attracting levy of tax. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the opinion that the question whether the boards erected by the petitioner are liable to tax by the respondent or not needs to be adjudicated after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have submitted his objections to the impugned proceedings, but no decision has been taken by the respondent thereon. Even though the impugned proceedings are termed as notice, it is in the nature of a demand for payment. In my opinion, when a liability is sought to be fastened on the petitioner, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent to issue a show-cause notice and take a decision after considering the objections, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner. As the respondent has failed to follow this procedure, the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the objections of the petitioner, pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the purported tax from the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30429 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th September, 2011 VGB