A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the 2025 order of the Calcutta High Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC).

“There are people who can have such advertisements inside a hotel or even a house. Would that also constitute a public property?” the bench asked KMC’s counsel, senior advocate Jaideep Gupta, rejecting the argument that the stadium was a public place merely because the public could enter it on buying a ticket.

The bench noted that the advertisement tax under the then Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 could be imposed only if the advertisements were visible from any public street or place, a condition that clearly did not apply to signage placed inside the stadium.

“This is inside a stadium and there is no unrestricted access there,” said the court, declining to keep the legal questions open for future adjudication as requested by KMC.

Senior advocate Rakeev Shakdher appeared for CAB.

The Supreme Court’s order effectively upholds the detailed findings of the Calcutta High Court’s division bench, which in June 2025 had dismissed KMC’s appeal and affirmed the single judge’s previous decision quashing the 1996 tax demand notice.

The controversy related to advertisements displayed inside Eden Gardens during the inaugural ceremony (11 February, 1996) and the semi-final match (13 March, 1996) of the World Cup. On 27 March 1996, KMC issued a demand for ₹51,18,450 under Section 204 of the Act.

CAB, the lessee of the stadium, challenged the demand on multiple grounds. It contended that the advertisements were not visible from any public street or place, as required under the unamended Section 204 and that the demand was issued without any prior hearing, violating natural justice. The plea added that no regulation or prescribed mechanism existed for calculating advertisement tax, rendering the demand arbitrary and that the stadium, being Union government’s property, was immune from municipal taxation under Article 285(1) of the Constitution.

The Single Judge agreed with CAB, finding that Eden Gardens was not a public place and that the tax demand lacked legal foundation. The division bench later upheld these findings in full.

The division bench held that “public place” under Section 204 required unrestricted public access, which Eden Gardens did not have. Ticketed, capacity-controlled entry, it said, was the very opposite of free public access.

While KMC argued that the stadium should be treated as a “restricted public place,” the court rejected the contention, noting that Section 204, as it stood then, required visibility from public streets or places, not from private, regulated premises. Since KMC did not dispute that the World Cup advertisements were visible only from inside the stadium, Section 204 could not be invoked.

The high court further found serious procedural infirmity in KMC’s actions. The civic body issued the notice without a show-cause opportunity, apart from without computation, breakup, or any legal basis for the amount claimed. KMC also ignored CAB’s representations and simultaneously initiated criminal proceedings — conduct the high court said reflected “procedural impropriety” and violated the principles of natural justice.

Compounding these defects, the court held that the absence of regulations prescribing computation under Section 204 rendered the levy ultra vires. Without a statutory prescription, no tax could be imposed.

The division bench also accepted CAB’s argument that Eden Gardens, being the property of the Union of India, was immune from municipal taxation. CAB’s status as lessee did not dilute this immunity because the Union retained full title to the property, it noted.