IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17527 OF 2002 Between: Chittoor Recognised English Medium Schools Association, Jandamanu Street, Chittoor District. …Petitioner and The Commissioner of Municipality and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.C.Krishnan Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.I.Newton Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following O R D E R: The petitioner is an association of English Medium Schools located within the municipal area of Chittoor. Respondent No.1 issued the impugned notices, whereby different amounts towards advertisement fees have been demanded in respect of alleged name boards, banners, wall posters, school bus name pamphlets etc. As the members of the petitioner association felt aggrieved by these demand notices, they filed the present writ petition through their association. No counter-affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has taken the plea that except the name boards of the schools, its members have not displayed any advertisement boards attracting levy of advertisement fee on the schools. At the hearing, Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the liability for the schools to pay tax on advertisements would arise if a person erects, exhibits, fixes or retains upon or over, any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure, any advertisement or displays any advertisement to public view in any manner whatsoever, in any place, whether public or private as envisaged under Section 114 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”). The learned counsel contended that none of the members of the petitioner association displayed any advertisement material in order to be liable to pay advertisement tax. He further submitted that had a prior notice been given to the schools, they would have satisfied respondent No.1 that they are not liable to pay tax. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the question whether the members of the petitioner association are liable to pay advertisement tax in terms of Section 114 of the Act or not ought to be examined by respondent No.1 after hearing the affected parties. A perusal of the demand notices does not indicate that any prior notice was given before making a demand towards the purported advertisement tax. In that view of the matter, the impugned demands are set aside. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to issue individual notices to the members of the petitioner association calling for their explanation and take appropriate action in accordance with law on considering the individual objections, if any, filed against the proposed levy of advertisement tax. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th October, 2009 vrn