Case Note & Summary
The Advertising Agencies Association of India and several other entities representing advertising, newspaper publishing, and broadcasting sectors filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. They challenged Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005, which amended the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, by inserting Article 5(h)(A) into Schedule I. This amendment imposed stamp duty on agreements relating to advertisements on mass media made for promoting any product, programme, or event with an intent to make profits or business. The petitioners also sought a writ of certiorari to quash notices dated 24th July 2007, 10th March 2008, and 9th June 2008, issued by the Collector of Stamps (Enforcement), who was the second respondent. The first respondent was the State of Maharashtra, through its Revenue and Forests Department. Earlier, the petitioners had held meetings with state officials, requesting withdrawal of the duty, but received no favourable response. Certain members, including Madison Communication Private Limited, had received enforcement notices. In the meantime, the court had passed an interim order on 14th January 2009. A Notice of Motion (Lodging) No. 17 of 2016 was taken out by the respondents to vacate that interim order. At the hearing, the court, comprising Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, indicated that deciding the notice of motion would touch upon the merits of the main petition, and with the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. The court heard arguments on 23rd August 2016 and reserved judgment, which was pronounced on 27th October 2016. The full text of the judgment beyond the initial proceedings is not available in the provided excerpt, so the final decision, reasoning, and directions are not included.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law – Stamp Duty – Advertisement Agreements – Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005, Schedule I, Article 5(h)(A) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 – Petitioners, comprising advertising agencies, newspaper society, advertisers’ society, and broadcasting foundation, sought a declaration that the amendment imposing stamp duty on mass media advertisement contracts is unconstitutional, and a writ of certiorari to quash notices issued by the Collector of Stamps – Notice of Motion for vacating interim order dated 14.01.2009 was taken up for hearing along with the main petition – Court heard both sides at length (Paras 1–7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005 amending Article 5(h)(A) of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, imposing stamp duty on agreements for mass media advertisements, is unconstitutional and void
Law Points
- Levy of stamp duty on agreements relating to advertisements on mass media under Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005 amending Bombay Stamp Act
- 1958
- challenge to constitutional validity
- Article 226
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 127
WRIT PETITION NO. 2006 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (LODG) NO. 17 OF 2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J., B.P. Colabawalla, J.
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, senior counsel with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Rohan Lav Kumar, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Sundar Bhandary, Mr. Rahul Mehta and Mr. Himanshu Chaudhary i/b M/s. Bhandary & Bhandary for Petitioners; Mr. Shrihari Aney, senior counsel / special counsel with Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for Respondents.
Advertising Agencies Association of India & Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Constitutional challenge to stamp duty levy on advertisement agreements on mass media.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash notices dated 24th July 2007, 10th March 2008, 9th June 2008, and a declaration that Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005 amending Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 to the extent of Article 5(h)(A) is unconstitutional.
Filing Reason
The State amended the Bombay Stamp Act to impose stamp duty on agreements for mass media advertisements, which the petitioners claim is unconstitutional.
Previous Decisions
Interim order dated 14th January 2009 was passed; notice of motion taken out to vacate it.
Issues
Whether Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005 amending Article 5(h)(A) of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, imposing stamp duty on agreements relating to advertisements on mass media, is unconstitutional?
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in nature thereof calling for the papers and proceedings relating to the impugned notice dated 24th Jul;y, 2007, 10th March, 2008, 9th June, 2008 being Annexures B to F and after scrutinizing them as to their legality and validity to quash and set aside the same.
However, the main and principal relief in the Writ Petition is to declare the Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005 to further amend the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, to the extent the same relates to the agreement in Article 5(h)(A) as unconstitutional, illegal and, therefore, void.
It is stated that the Maharashtra Stamp Act has been amended so as to bring within the broad description of a Instrument styled as agreement or its records or memorandum of an agreement any advertisement on mass-media made for promotion of any product or programme or event with an intention to make profits or business out of it.
Procedural History
The petition was filed in 2008. A notice of motion for vacating interim order dated 14th January 2009 was taken out (Notice of Motion (Lodg) No.17 of 2016). The court decided to hear the main writ petition along with the notice of motion. Heard on 23rd August 2016, judgment reserved, pronounced on 27th October 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (as amended by Maharashtra Act No.XXXII of 2005): Schedule I, Article 5(h)(A)(i)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Societies Registration Act, 1860:
- Indian Companies Act, 1956: Section 25
