JUDGMENT : D.A. Mehta, J. The parties have been heard at length at the admission stage. Considering the controversy involved, the Court has found it necessary to hear the matter finally. Rule. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents are directed to waive service of rule. 2. The petition challenges the various communications issued by respondent No. 1, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking service tax from the petitioner with incidental prayer to refund amount of Rs.6,17,165/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization. 3. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on business as an Advertising Agent. Respondent No. 1 is Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the AMC"). As a part of the statutory duties and functions imposed by virtue of provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the BPMC Act"), AMC is required to grant written permission for erecting, fixing, exhibiting or retaining any sky-sign or advertisement of the kind prescribed by Rules upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure. The case of the petitioner is that since last more than fifty years, AMC has been permitting placing of advertisements in and on private properties and AMC charges fees at the prescribed rates for hoardings in and on private properties in the city of Ahmedabad. The petitioner has been paying such fees regularly. 4. Respondent – AMC vide impugned communication dated 6.5.2008 (Annexure "A") called upon the petitioner to pay service tax on the license fee charges for 2006-07 on the advertising boards put up on private properties. This was followed by communications dated 8.7.2008, 30.9.2008, 6.10.2008, 14.7.2009 and 18.7.2009. It appears that the petitioner has deposited various amounts from time to time towards such demand of service tax, totalling to Rs.6,17,165/- "under protest" while challenging the right of AMC to recover such service tax. The petitioner has ultimately challenged the action of AMC by way of this petition, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Ahmedabad has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 after obtaining permission from this Court vide order dated 17.8.2009. 5. The petitioner has ultimately challenged the action of AMC by way of this petition, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Ahmedabad has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 after obtaining permission from this Court vide order dated 17.8.2009. 5. The case of the petitioner as propounded by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that service tax which is levied by provisions of Finance Act, 1994 as amended from time to time, including the amendments by Finance Act, 2006, has cast a duty on a person who is providing taxable service to pay service tax and "taxable service" has been assigned the meaning stipulated by section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Tax Act"), wherein clause (zzzm) of section 65(105) of the Service Tax Act provides that "taxable service" means any service provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to sale of space or time for advertisement etc. Explanation 1 there under explains what the phrase "sale of space or time for advertisement" includes. That a plain reading of the said provision would indicate that AMC cannot be termed to be a person who is providing service to any person so as to fall within the ambit of the said definition of "taxable service", and if AMC cannot be termed to be a person who is providing space for display or for advertisement, AMC cannot seek to recover any service tax on the fees charged by AMC as license fees because, as per provisions of the BPMC Act, such fees are charged as license fees for the purposes of putting up/erecting a structure/hoarding for the purposes of advertisement, but the erection of such hoarding is on a land belonging to and owned by a private party and therefore, the license fees charged by AMC cannot be equated with any services being rendered by AMC so as to fall within the ambit of definition of the term "taxable service" envisaged by section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act. 6. On behalf of AMC, no affidavit in-reply has been tendered, but considering the stand of AMC, it is strictly not necessary that AMC should file an affidavit in-reply. 6. On behalf of AMC, no affidavit in-reply has been tendered, but considering the stand of AMC, it is strictly not necessary that AMC should file an affidavit in-reply. On behalf of AMC, learned Senior Advocate submitted that, because AMC has been called upon to make payment of service tax by the Service Tax Department, AMC has sought to recover such service tax, after paying the same to the Service Tax Department, from persons like the petitioner to whom written permission is granted upon payment of license fees. It was submitted that if AMC is not liable to pay service tax, there is no question of AMC being required to make payment to the Service Tax Department and recover the same from the petitioner. 7. On behalf of respondent No. 3, attention was invited to paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply dated 4.11.2009, to submit that it was not relevant whether AMC was owner of the space let out for billboards/hoardings in respect of such billboards/hoardings put up in or on private properties within the city of Ahmedabad, nor was it relevant whether AMC was charging any rent in this regard. That so long as service is provided by AMC, irrespective of the fact as to who holds the material/property on the basis of which service is provided, the service rendered becomes taxable event and as laid down in the case of Empire India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), ownership was not a relevant factor. That a plain reading of section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act made it clear that the provision was unambiguous and had no nexus with the aspect of ownership while providing service. Learned advocate appearing for Service Tax Department, therefore, submitted that AMC was justified in raising the demand of service tax from the petitioner and the petition was devoid of merits. 8. The petition raises two issues which can be formulated in the following terms : Firstly, whether AMC is rendering any service which can be termed to be "taxable service" within the meaning of the said term as defined in section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act? Secondly, if AMC is liable to pay service tax on the footing that AMC is rendering taxable service, whether AMC is entitled to recover the same from the petitioner, and if so, under which provision? 9. Secondly, if AMC is liable to pay service tax on the footing that AMC is rendering taxable service, whether AMC is entitled to recover the same from the petitioner, and if so, under which provision? 9. The facts are not in dispute. In the present case, AMC has granted written permission to the petitioner to erect certain hoardings on private premises and for granting such written permission, AMC has charged and collected certain fees. For this purpose, sections 244 and 245 of BPMC Act when read together provide for granting of written permission for erecting, fixing, exhibiting or retaining any sky-sign or advertisement upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure, subject to the applicant fulfilling the requisite conditions prescribed by Rules. Under section 386 of the BPMC Act, AMC is entitled to charge a fee at the prescribed rate for granting the written permission. It is necessary to note that all the parties, including AMC, have used the term "license fees", however, a conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act makes it clear that what is envisaged by the provisions is only a written permission and not a license. Licensing is providing in sections 372 to 385 of Chapter XXII of the BPMC Act, and the same is in relation to specific items enumerated in the said provisions. As against this, sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act only talk of written permission and the two are not one and the same. Even if, a common application form may be prescribed, the fees which are charged and collected by AMC for granting written permission under sections 244 and 245 of the BPMC Act, are fees for the written permission and not for a license. 10. A plain reading of sections 244 and 245 of the BPMC Act makes it clear that the said provisions are for the purposes of regulating and controlling the erection etc. of sky-signs and/or billboards, hoardings etc., to ensure that the structure so erected does not pose as a public hazard either by virtue of projection/abutment on a public road/street, or by way of obstructing vision, or any such similar hazard to the public at large. of sky-signs and/or billboards, hoardings etc., to ensure that the structure so erected does not pose as a public hazard either by virtue of projection/abutment on a public road/street, or by way of obstructing vision, or any such similar hazard to the public at large. Hence, granting of written permission, after ensuring that the structure so erected complies with the relevant bye-laws and/or the building regulations in force from time to time, is a part and parcel of function of a Municipal Corporation in the form of a duty to the public to ensure a better municipal Government of the city and cannot be termed to be a service rendered to the petitioner so as to be covered by the meaning of the definition of "taxable service" envisaged by section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act. 11. Section 65 of the Service Tax Act provides in the opening portion that in Chapter 5, unless the context otherwise requires, the definition provided in various sub-sections would become applicable. Sub-section (105) and clause (zzzm) of section 65 of the Service Tax Act, which are relevant for the present, read as under: "(105) "Taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided -" (zzzm) to any person, by any other person, in relation to sale of space or time for advertisement, in any manner; but does not include sale of space for advertisement in print media and sale of time slots by a broadcasting agency or organisation. Explanation 1 – For the purposes of this sub-clause, "sale of space or time for advertisement" includes - [i] providing space or time, as the case may be, for display, advertising, showcasing of any product or service in video programmes, television programmes or motion pictures or music albums, or on billboards, public places, buildings, conveyances, cell phones, automated teller machines, internet; [ii] selling of time slots on radio or television by a person, other than a broadcasting agency or organisation; and [iii] aerial advertising. Explanation 2 – For the purposes of this sub-clause, "print media" means "book" and "newspaper" as defined in sub-section (1) of section 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867)" 12. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that "taxable service" means any service provided to any person, by any other person in relation to sale of space for advertisement. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that "taxable service" means any service provided to any person, by any other person in relation to sale of space for advertisement. Explanation-1 thereunder specifies what the phrase "sale of space for advertisement" includes. Sub-clause (i) stipulates providing space for display, advertising, etc., on billboards, public places, buildings etc. For the present, it is not necessary to refer to the remaining portion of the provisions. Thus, what is primarily required for a service to become a taxable service for the purposes of levy of service tax, is a service being provided to any person, by any other person in relation to sale of space for advertisement, namely, providing space for display. 13. The question, therefore, that is required to be posed and answered is whether AMC is providing any service to any person in relation to sale of space for advertisement by providing space for display in the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the property on which the structure is erected in the form of billboard or hoarding is not owned by AMC. AMC is only granting written permission after ensuring compliance with the requisite regulatory requirements for a fee. AMC is not rendering any service to the petitioner. It may be that in a wider sense, the regulatory function of AMC could be termed to be a public service for ensuring safety of public at large or providing a hazard-free environment within the local limits of AMC. However, the service envisaged by section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act, is not of this nature and therefore, there is no question of AMC being charged service tax in relation to the fees collected for granting written permission in terms of sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act read together. The property being admittedly owned by a private person, as distinguished from AMC, a public body, the act of granting written permission cannot be treated to be a sale of space for advertisement, that is, providing space for display. Therefore, once it is found that AMC is not rendering any taxable service to the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, it is not possible to uphold the action of AMC in calling upon the petitioner to make payment of service tax. 14. There is one more aspect of the matter. Therefore, once it is found that AMC is not rendering any taxable service to the petitioner, in the facts of the present case, it is not possible to uphold the action of AMC in calling upon the petitioner to make payment of service tax. 14. There is one more aspect of the matter. The provision nowhere envisages AMC being entitled to charge and collect service tax on the fees charged and collected by AMC for granting written permission. AMC cannot act as an agent for the purpose of recovery of service tax, even if one assumes that the service provided by the petitioner to the client of the petitioner might be a taxable service. In the facts of the present case, it is nobody's case that the demand has been raised by the Service Tax Department on the petitioner in relation to the service rendered by the petitioner to its client. Hence, it is not necessary to dwell any further on this aspect of the matter, namely, whether the petitioner is rendering any service to its client so as to be treated as a taxable service under the provisions of the Service Tax Act. 15. Hence, in absence of any authority in law by way of any statutory provision empowering AMC to collect service tax, the demand raised by AMC and the amount collected by AMC are without authority of law and cannot be upheld. 16. It is also necessary to note that the contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 3, Service Tax Department, that ownership of property is not a relevant factor for determining liability to pay service tax may in abstract appear to be correct. However, what has to be considered is whether a taxable event has taken place, in the facts of the present case. The provisions of section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act require sale of space for advertisement, in other words, providing space for display or advertisement, and AMC is not in any manner providing space for display. Hence, to the said extent, aspect of ownership assumes significance. If the structure is erected by the petitioner on a premise privately owned, it cannot be stated that AMC has provided space for display. Hence, to the said extent, aspect of ownership assumes significance. If the structure is erected by the petitioner on a premise privately owned, it cannot be stated that AMC has provided space for display. In the present case, the Court is not called upon to decide as to whether owner of such private property answers the description of the person who is providing service by sale of space for advertisement or providing space for display. 17. In light of what is stated hereinbefore, it is apparent that the act of AMC in granting written permission for a fee is in context of provisions of sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act read together and the said act cannot be termed to be a service provided by AMC to make the act a taxable service for the purposes of Service Tax Act. 18. AMC has, therefore, erred in law in demanding service tax from petitioner in the facts of the case and recovering the same without authority of law. Accordingly, communications dated 6.5.2008 (Annexure "A"), 8.7.2008 and 30.9.2008 (Annexure "AA" collectively), 6.10.2008 (Annexure "B"), 14.7.2009 (Annexure "D") and 18.7.2009 (Annexure "E"), are hereby quashed and set aside, and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed not to take any steps for the purposes of effecting coercive recovery of service tax. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is also directed to refund an amount of Rs. 6,17,165/- having wrongly recovered the same towards service tax from the petitioner. Considering the nature of the controversy, the prayer for refunding amount of Rs.6,17,165/- with interest, is not accepted. 19. The petition is allowed, accordingly, in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.