Dismissed

Sri K S Doreswamy v. City Municipal Council

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2013WP/2101/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging a tax demand notice and revised assessment order. Holding that a statutory appeal lies under Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, the court stayed its hand, reserving liberty for the petitioner to work out the remedy by filing an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy by filing an appeal in accordance with law.

Sri K S Doreswamy Vs City Municipal Council — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶5

W.P. Nos. 2101/2013 & 7047-7055/2013 (LB-TAX)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

¶8

Sri. K S DORESWAMY S/O. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF Sri. RAMAKRISHNA CHITRA MANDIRA CHIKKAMANDYA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DIST. – 571 401. … PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. M SHIVAPPA, Sr. ADV.)

¶10

AND :

¶11

¶12

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MANDYA REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER MANDYA – 571 401. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Sri. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.)

¶14

¶15

¶16

THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.07.1998 AND ETC.

¶17

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING;

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is running a cinema theatre in the name of ‘Sri Ramakrishna Chitra Mandira’ in survey No. 581/1 of Chikkamandya

¶20

village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya taluk. The respondent issued a demand notice in the year 1989 directing the petitioner to pay tax. Aggrieved by this demand notice the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the then Divisional Commissioner in M.A. No. 8/1989-90. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 20.03.1990 rejected the revision petition. Aggrieved by the demand notice issued by the respondent and the order of the Divisional Commissioner the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 16025/1990. This Court vide order dated 05.02.1990 allowed the writ petition, set aside the demand made by the respondent and

¶21

¶22

remanded the matter to pass a fresh revised assessment order after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent passed the revised assessment order after providing an opportunity to the petitioner on 23.07.1998 as per Annexure J.

¶23

Aggrieved by the revised assessment order at Annexure J

¶24

the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 24097/1998 and the same came to be disposed vide order dated 19.11.1998 and the operative portion reads as under:

¶25

“After the petition was heard for quite some time, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner files a memo seeking leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a civil suit. Memo recorded. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is open to the petitioner to approach such forum as is permissible in law for redressal of his grievances, if he is so advised.”

¶26

Thereafter the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No.

¶27

299/1998 against the respondent on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Mandya to declare that the cinema theatre in question do

¶28

¶29

not come under the purview of the respondent municipality and on the other hand the same comes under the purview of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. The trial Court vide judgment dated 31.01.2005 dismissed O.S. No. 299/1998. Aggrieved by this judgment of the trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal in R.A. No. 16/2005 and the same came to be allowed vide judgment dated 14.07.2005. The respondent being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court in R.A. No. 16/2005 approached this Court in second appeal in R.S.A. No. 746/2006. During the pendency of R.S.A. No. 746/2006 the petitioner filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the suit. Accordingly, this Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2012 allowed the memo filed by the petitioner permitting him to withdraw the suit with liberty to approach the competent authority by way of a writ petition. Accordingly, the second appeal came to be disposed. Now the present writ petition is filed questioning the revised assessment order – Annexure J dated 23.07.1998.

¶30

¶31

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire

¶32

writ papers.

¶33

The petitioner is agitating the demand made by the respondent from the year 1989. It is seen from the record that the petitioner is exploring forum after forum questioning the revised assessment order passed by the respondent without paying the tax. Under Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act (for short `the Act’) an appeal is provided against any claim made by the respondent either under Section 142(3) or under Section 148 of the Act. The impugned revised assessment order is passed under Section 142(3) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy by filing an appeal in accordance with law these writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE.

¶35

LRS.

Sri K S Doreswamy v. City Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Doreswamy v. City Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Green View Welfare Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Amaresha Babu Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri P Vishwanath Vs the Commissioner

Mrs Shanthi Clara D Souza W/O Gracian Ravi D Souza Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri P v Uday Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike