1996 World Cup: SC rejects Kolkata Municipal Corporation's plea over advertisement tax

New Delhi, Nov 14 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's plea challenging an order which quashed the demand notice claiming Rs 51.18 lakhs from Cricket Association of Bengal on account of advertisement tax for the 1996 Cricket World Cup held at Eden Gardens.

The corporation had issued a demand notice on March 27, 1996, claiming Rs 51,18,450 from the association on account of advertisement tax for the inaugural ceremony and a semifinal match of the 1996 World Cup held at the Eden Gardens.

The inaugural ceremony of the World Cup was organised by the association on February 11, 1996, while the semifinal match was held on March 13, 1996.

A plea filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation challenging an order of June this year by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court came up for hearing on Friday before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The high court's division bench had dismissed an appeal filed by the corporation against an April 2015 order of its single judge. The division bench had said Eden Gardens stadium cannot be held to be a "public place".

The single judge had allowed a plea filed by the Cricket Association of Bengal challenging the demand notice.

The top court dismissed the corporation's plea against the high court's order.

In its order, the high court's division bench had noted that the Cricket Association of Bengal enjoys a lease of the Eden Gardens in Kolkata and the owner of the property is the Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

It had said that certain advertisements were put up both inside and outside the stadium during the 1996 Cricket World Cup.

The corporation had issued a demand notice on account of advertisement tax for the two days of the World Cup by invoking a provision of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, which deals with tax on advertisements.

The association had challenged the demand notice before the high court contending that the concerned advertisements were displayed within the Eden Gardens stadium which was not a public place and the same were not visible to the public from a public street or a public place.

A single judge of the high court had quashed the demand notice after which the corporation had moved the division bench.

Before the high court's division bench, the counsel appearing for the municipal corporation had argued that when advertisements were deployed either inside or outside the Eden Gardens stadium, such advertisements were visible from a public place.

"In our opinion, as soon as conditions are imposed on members of the public for having access to a place, that place ceases to be a public place. A public place must be accessible to an indeterminate number of people without any hindrance or condition," the division bench had said.

It had said that the public does not have absolute or unrestricted right of access to Eden Gardens and just because the stadium can accommodate a huge number of people, that would not per se make it a public place.

The division bench of the high court had refused to interfere with the single judge's order and dismissed the appeal filed by the corporation. PTI ABA ABA KSS KSS