The decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged by the petitioners in a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submitted that:
i. Constitution of India does not empower the State of Maharashtra to impose tax on anything shown on electronic and print media, and levy stamp duty on the execution of the document pertaining to advertisement. What it cannot do directly, cannot be permitted to do indirectly in law, petitioners argued.
ii. The State Legislature cannot impose tax on anything shown on electronic and print media, that is to say, on the television, radio and newspaper.
iii. The expression “through an electronic and print media” has to be given appropriate and adequate emphasis so that the freedom of speech and expression is sustained in a democratic body polity and no attempt should be made to scuttle their progress and smother their effective sustenance.
iv. Additionally, if a huge revenue is taken away from the members of the Broadcasting Foundation, who are embedded to the cause of freedom of speech and expression that percolates the ethos pertaining to individual and collective expression, inevitably it would hamper the freedom of speech and expression. This is not constitutionally permissible.
In response, it was argued on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that:
i. The subject of levy of stamp duty comes within Lists II and III of the Constitution. The State Legislature has the authority to legislate and, therefore, the judgment rendered by the High Court is absolutely flawless.
ii. The argument of the petitioner that such a levy affects the freedom of press and freedom of speech and expression as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is incorrect because the levy of stamp duty is in no way correlated with such argument.
iii. A State Legislature can legislate touching the aspects of stamp duty for the purpose of revenue generation and it cannot be called a colorable exercise of power.
iv. Stamp Duty is to be paid by the advertising agency or persons and, thereby, neither the electronic media nor the print media are affected.
After considering the rival contentions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the matter requires to be debated, especially keeping in view the sanctity of the freedom of speech and expression and the involvement of electronic and print media. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court, vide order dated March 27, 2017 stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court, subject to the members of the petitioner-Foundation keeping accounts and following other directions so that eventually, at the time of final adjudication, appropriate relief can be moulded.
In its recent order passed on February 20, 2024 in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted leave to the petitioners to file and appeal. Till the final outcome of the matter, the decision of the High Court has been stayed by the apex court.
As the things stand today, the validity of the 2005 amendment to the Article no. 5 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act is yet to be debated by the rival parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Source: Barandbench
