JUDGMENT I.P. Mukerji 1. EVERYBODY knows Airtel. It is the writ petitioner here. It challenges several notices issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. These notices were issued under sections 202,203 and 204(1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. One was issued to Airtel, the others, to Nalanda Watch Emporium, Jindal Communication, M/s. Rasraj and New Rasraj and M/s. Foreign Publishers Agency. The notice to Airtel was issued on 10th February, 2007, the others, on various dates in December, 2006. They claim taxes on glow signs under those sections. 2. AIRTEL asserts that the other notices are doing business for it and on its behalf being its 'dealers, distributors, retailers.' In other words, it tries to say that they are its agents. Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 has given rise to all the controversy in this case. The substance of this section is that if glow signs are put up on a particular building or premise as advertisement or promotion of the business, carried on there, it would not attract any tax at all. But if a glow sign is set up some where else advertising or publicising any business the person who puts up such advertisement would have to pay tax. [section 204(2)(c)]. For example, if a person 'X' carries on the business of providing mobile phone service from premises 'Y', then he may put up glow signs on this premise to promote or advertise his business. But, if the self-same service provider hires any place beside the road to the Airport and sets up glow signs advertising his business then, he would have to pay tax. 3. ANOTHER question which falls for consideration here is that, if a particular building is used by a bona fide agent of a person, for example, a retailer, distributor, franchisee etc. to carry on the principal's business, whether it can be properly called the building where the principal carries on business, for the purpose of this section. 4. ON my understanding of this section if a particular business is carried on in a particular building advertisement of that business on or over the building to public view would not attract any tax. There is no question whatsoever about the ownership of the building or the advertiser personally carrying on business within that building and so on. The advertisement should have a relationship with the business within a building. There is no question whatsoever about the ownership of the building or the advertiser personally carrying on business within that building and so on. The advertisement should have a relationship with the business within a building. That is the only consideration. On a consideration of the notice dated 10th February, 2007, as Annexure 'P1' at page 27 of the writ application I find that the notice is addressed to Airtel at P392 A, Purnadas Road, Kolkata 29 signifying that business is carried on by Airtel from those premises. Again in the body of the notice it is mentioned that the advertisement being glow signs was displayed in a building on those premises. It is not disputed that these glow signs related to the business of Airtel. Therefore, on the face of the notice it appears that the notice relates to the advertisement in relation to the business carried on in the premises mentioned in the notice. Therefore, on the face of it this notice is bad as section 204(2)(c) permits such advertisement and therefore this notice is set aside. 5. AS far as the other notices are concerned the writ petitioner has asserted that they are its distributors, dealer, retailer, and so on. But in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation this has been denied. It says that these organisations have no connection with the writ petitioner. 6. ON my interpretation of section 204(2)(c) of the Act it does not matter whether a business is performed individually or by agency. The only question is that within the building a business has to be carried out. Any advertisement or glow signs outside the building must relate to that business. Therefore, the question which falls for consideration is whether in the premises of the organisations mentioned in the other four notices being the last four annexures of the writ petition trade or business relating to those glow signs were carried on. This is a question of fact which has to be investigated. 7. THEREFORE, pending investigation of the above facts the three notices being notice dated 4th December, 2006 in favour of Nalanda Watch Emporium, notice dated 4th December, 2006 to Jindal Communications and notice dated 30th November, 2006 to Rasraj and New Rasraj and notice dated 8th December, 2006 to M/s. Foreign Publishers Agency are quashed and set aside. 8. 7. THEREFORE, pending investigation of the above facts the three notices being notice dated 4th December, 2006 in favour of Nalanda Watch Emporium, notice dated 4th December, 2006 to Jindal Communications and notice dated 30th November, 2006 to Rasraj and New Rasraj and notice dated 8th December, 2006 to M/s. Foreign Publishers Agency are quashed and set aside. 8. REGARDING these notices the Commissioner Kolkata Municipal Corporation or his properly constituted delegate will investigate the issue whether any tax can be imposed in respect of those advertisements under section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made above, after giving a hearing to the writ petitioner and other necessary parties. The decision so arrived at must be a reasoned decision. If it is found in such decision that tax can be imposed, then fresh notices may be issued in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed to the above extent accordingly. 9. URGENT certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied' to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.