Case: Links Advertisers &amp; Business Promoters Vs. Commissioner, Corporation Of The City Ofb

that the article should face or have its front toward, opposite or over against the house or the street. In our opinion the word "fronting" has been used in the proviso not in any leg al or technical sense but as used in ordinary parlance. It is not a term of art but one that signifies its meaning according to common notions. For these reasons, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that as the advertisements upon the hoardings in the instant case were undoubtedly facing or fronting the street they were exigible to tax and the fact that they were a f[axed on the earth which formed the compound of the railway premises would make no difference in view of the plain and unambiguous language of the proviso. 22. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in The Corporation of Madras v. Messrs The Oriental Mercantile Company Ltd., Madras. ([1966] 2 M.L.J. 440, ) This authority, however, can have no application to the facts of the present case, because to begin with, there is nothing to show that the hoardings containing the advertisements were in any way fronting or facing the street. On the other hand, the advertisements were merely on the outside wall within the railway compound. In these circumstances, therefore, this case does not appear to be of any assistance to the appellant.Reliance was then placed on a decision of the Queens Bench Division in Ware Urban District Council v. Gaunt and Others([1969] 3 All E.R. 778, 787.) and particularly on the observations of Ashworth, J., where the Judge observed as follows:"The remaining issue is, in a sense, the most troublesome of all, namely, whether it is open to the appellants to apportion part of the expense on premises situate on the westerly side of Walton Road but separated from it by the public footpath. This issue involves as an ancillary problem the question whether part of the expense should in any event be apportioned on the public footpath. Section 6 of the Act of 1892 provides, inter alia, that ".:..the expenses incurred by the urban authority in executing private street works shall be apportioned (subject as in this Act mentioned) on the premises fronting, adjoining, or abutting on such street or pan of a street." " The observations extracted above will show that there also. the Court was dealing not with a tax on advertisements but a tax on premises, and the question of the frontage was interpreted having regard to the place where the premises were situate. In the same judgment, the learned Judge observed as follows:"In each case, as it seems to me, regard must be paid to the context in which the words appear and, quite apart front any decided cases, I am inclined to think that the context in the present case points to an enlarged rather than a restricted meaning of the word "adjoin"." (Emphasis ours) 23. It is, therefore, clear that the meaning of the words used in a particular statute has to be construed with reference to the context and not in isolation, not is it possible to lay down any rule of universal application in a matter like this. For these reasons, therefore, this authority also does not appear to be apposite so far as the present case is concerned.The Single Judge of the High Court, while interpreting the proviso, observed as follows:"These advertisements in question are displayed on the hoardings standing close to the cement fencing at the outer mark of the railway property. The cement railings are hardly about 3 feet in height and the advertisement boards are very much above the railings. The Public street to which the advertisements are facing runs along the cement railings, with no other obstacle between the advertisement boards and the public view. Therefore, it can reasonably, be said that they are fronting the Public Street." 24. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge. 25. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, while upholding the judgment of the Single Judge, observed as follows:"In the instant case, we are not faced with any situation as the one envisaged in the second part of the exemption clause relative to advertisement on a wall or other property of the railway frontage by street. We are concerned herein with the case of a hoarding put up by and belonging to the appellant and not t he railway. Hence, it is plain that no exemption on that score could be claimed on behalf of the appellant." 26. The High Court does not appear to have interpreted the proviso correctly. Th e view of the High Court that the proviso would only apply to advertisements of such hoardings whose ownership lies with the Railway or which belong to the Railway is not borne out by cl. (e) of the third proviso to s. 236. In other words the question of exigibility to tax is relatable not to the ownership of the hoarding but its situs. Even if the hoarding does not belong to the Railway but to some private party, if it does not front the street and is situated within the Railway premises or within the compound of the railway premises it is clearly exempt. We, therefore, do not approve of the line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench.On a close and careful interpretation, therefore, of cl. (e) of the third proviso to s. 136 of the Act we are clearly of the opinion that on the facts proved in the present case as the hoardings, containing the advertisements were fronting the public street and were clearly exposed to public view and the members of the public passing through the street, they are not covered by the exemption contemplated by the proviso and are, therefore, exigible to tax. The demand notice, therefore, served on the appellant by the Municipal Corporation for payment of tax is not legally erroneous. 27.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The sine qua non for the application of this section is, therefore, that the advertisements displayed by any person must be to public view in any manner whatsoever. Once these conditions are satisfied, the person who exhibits the advertisements is liable to pay tax on such advertisements As, however, the Act was merely to regulate the premises falling within the Bangalore Municipal Corporation, it is obvious that the premises which did not fall within the Corporation or which belonged to other autonomous authorities could not be exigible to tax unless expressly so provided. Furthermore, it appears that the object of the Municipal Corporation in charging tax was to keep the public premises clean and water-tight and protect advertisements which may amount to nuisance, because the , Act lays down a procedure which has to be followed before the advertisements could be exhibited. Consistent with this object, there- fore, the third proviso to s. 136 of the Act grants an exemption from tax on any advertisement which is exhibited in any railway station or upon any wail or other property of a railway. Here also an exception is carved out which is that if such an advertisement, even though on any portion of the railway property, faces an y street it will not earn the exemptionWe have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, but on a proper interpretation of the proviso we are unable to accept the same. To. begin with, if the proviso is read with reference to the context, then it is absolutely clear that the verb "fronting" qualifies not t he wall or the property but the advertisement. The central subject-matter of s. 136 as also of the proviso is not a place or building but advertisement which alone attracted taxThe test, therefore, laid down by this proviso is that the Court has to see whether the advertisement affixed whether inside the compound of the railway or not fronts the street. If the advertisement fronts the street or faces the street even if it is within t he railway premises, it will be exigible to tax. For instance if the; hoardings containing the advertisements were affixed just behind the compound wall and the advertisements did not face the street at all but faced the other side of the railway station their back being to the street, then the advertisements will certainly be exempt from tax and the proviso would clearly apply. This seems to us to be the natural interpretation of the proviso having regard to the context in which it is placedAccording to the aforesaid dictionary meaning "fronting" merely means that the article should face or have its front toward, opposite or over against the house or the street. In our opinion the word "fronting" has been used in the proviso not in any leg al or technical sense but as used in ordinary parlance. It is not a term of art but one that signifies its meaning according to common notions. For these reasons, therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that as the advertisements upon the hoardings in the instant case were undoubtedly facing or fronting the street they were exigible to tax and the fact that they were a f[axed on the earth which formed the compound of the railway premises would make no difference in view of the plain and unambiguous language of the provisoIt is, therefore, clear that the meaning of the words used in a particular statute has to be construed with reference to the context and not in isolation, not is it possible to lay down any rule of universal application in a matter like this. For these reasons, therefore, this authority also does not appear to be apposite so far as the present case is concernedWe find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Single JudgeThe High Court does not appear to have interpreted the proviso correctly. Th e view of the High Court that the proviso would only apply to advertisements of such hoardings whose ownership lies with the Railway or which belong to the Railway is not borne out by cl. (e) of the third proviso to s. 236. In other words the question of exigibility to tax is relatable not to the ownership of the hoarding but its situs. Even if the hoarding does not belong to the Railway but to some private party, if it does not front the street and is situated within the Railway premises or within the compound of the railway premises it is clearly exempt. We, therefore, do not approve of the line of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench.On a close and careful interpretation, therefore, of cl. (e) of the third proviso to s. 136 of the Act we are clearly of the opinion that on the facts proved in the present case as the hoardings, containing the advertisements were fronting the public street and were clearly exposed to public view and the members of the public passing through the street, they are not covered by the exemption contemplated by the proviso and are, therefore, exigible to tax. The demand notice, therefore, served on the appellant by the Municipal Corporation for payment of tax is not legally erroneousFrom the photographs produced before us, as also before the High Court, it appears that the hoardings containing the advertisements are no doubt fixed just 2 or 3 feet behind the compound fencing of the railway station premisesThis authority, however, can have no application to the facts of the present case, because to begin with, there is nothing to show that the hoardings containing the advertisements were in any way fronting or facing the street. On the other hand, the advertisements were merely on the outside wall within the railway compound. In these circumstances, therefore, this case does not appear to be of any assistance to the appellant.