In a final verdict to a nearly three-decade-long legal battle, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's (KMC) appeal regarding advertisement tax levied on the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) for displays at Eden Gardens during the 1996 Cricket World Cup. The apex court's decision, delivered on Friday, upholds the Calcutta High Court's ruling that Eden Gardens cannot be considered a "public place" for the purpose of advertisement tax.
The controversy originated from a demand notice issued by KMC on March 27, 1996, seeking ₹51.18 lakh from CAB for advertisements displayed during the inaugural ceremony on February 11, 1996, and the semi-final match on March 13, 1996, of the Wills World Cup. CAB, the lessee of Eden Gardens, challenged this demand, arguing that the advertisements were not visible from any public street or place, as required by Section 204 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. CAB also contended that the demand was issued without a prior hearing, violating natural justice, and that the stadium, being Union government property, was immune from municipal taxation under Article 285(1) of the Constitution.
A single judge of the Calcutta High Court initially ruled in favor of CAB in 2015, stating that Eden Gardens was not a public place and that the tax demand lacked legal foundation. KMC appealed this decision, but a division bench of the High Court upheld the single judge's ruling in June 2025. The division bench emphasized that a location ceases to be a public place when access is subject to conditions, observing that Eden Gardens is owned by the Ministry of Defence and that access is controlled by CAB and limited to specific match days with valid tickets. The court added that allowing large crowds for events does not, by itself, make the venue public.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing KMC's appeal and refusing to interfere with the 2025 order. The bench questioned KMC's counsel, asking whether advertisements inside a hotel or house would constitute public property simply because people could enter. The Supreme Court bench noted that the advertisement tax could only be imposed if the advertisements were visible from a public street or place, a condition not met by signage inside the stadium, emphasizing that there was no unrestricted access to the stadium. The court also declined KMC's request to keep the legal questions open for future adjudication.
The Supreme Court's order effectively puts an end to KMC's decades-old claim. Senior advocate Rakeev Shakdher represented CAB in the Supreme Court. With the apex court's ruling, the legal precedent is set that Eden Gardens, with its controlled access and ticketed entry, does not qualify as a public place for the purpose of levying advertisement tax.
