Bombay High Court Backs Municipal Power to Charge Hoarding Fees; GST Has No Impact:

Hoarding licence levy held to be a valid regulatory fee under municipal law, not an advertisement tax wiped out by GST
HC: Hoarding Licence Fee Is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Apply

Bombay High Court Backs Municipal Power to Charge Hoarding Fees; GST Has No Impact
A batch of writ petitions led by Manoj Madhav Limaye & Ors. questioned the authority of Municipal Corporations, primarily the Pune Municipal Corporation, to levy and enhance licence fees for permissions relating to sky-signs and hoardings under Sections 244 and 386(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
The petitioners argued that the levy was, in substance, an illegal “tax” imposed without legislative competence and not a genuine fee linked to regulation. The challenge was founded on constitutional changes following the 101st Constitutional Amendment and the introduction of GST, with petitioners asserting that all forms of advertisement tax stood abolished.
Issue Raised: Whether the licence fee levied by Municipal Corporations on sky-signs and hoardings constitutes an impermissible “tax” extinguished post-GST, or a valid regulatory fee within municipal powers.
HC Held: The High Court dismissed the petitions in their entirety, holding that the impugned levy is a regulatory fee and not a tax. The Court underscored that Municipal Corporations bear substantial responsibility in regulating hoardings to ensure public safety, traffic discipline, skyline management, and structural integrity, and the fee is charged to defray the cost of such regulation. The distinction between a tax and a regulatory fee was reaffirmed, with the Court observing that public interest in urban regulation cannot be compromised.
The Court further held that the source of power to levy such fees flows from Entries 5 and 66 of List II of the Seventh Schedule and Article 243X of the Constitution, and not from the deleted Entry 55 relating to advertisement tax. As a result, the levy is not subsumed under GST. The Court characterised the challenge as commercially motivated “luxury litigation” and upheld the Corporations’ authority to fix and revise licence fees.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2159My Recent Articles
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest Earned from Co-operative Bank DepositsPremium
- ITAT Quashes Consequential Assessment After Section 263 Revision Order FailsPremium
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








