Disposed

M/S August Ventures Private Limited v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC29 Sept 2021WP/11355/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged municipal tax demands under Article 226. Court refused immediate interference, directing submission of detailed representation with required documents within two weeks for final consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation within two weeks; BBMP to decide within four weeks; no prejudicial action until then.

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.11355/2017 (LB - BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

M/S.AUGUST VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.17/1 CAMP BELL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 047. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SMT.ANITHA N., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶11

AND

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 95.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE

¶16

(PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.WARD-1/PR/20/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE - A AND ANOTHER ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 IN CASE NO.WARD-1/PR/21/2016-17 AT ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 raising a demand of Rs.26,51,577/and another demand of Rs.17,75,610/-.

¶22

Heard Smt. Amitha N., learned counsel

¶23

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. V. Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶24

A notice is issued to the petitioner on 30-01-2017 demanding an amount of Rs.26,51,577/-

¶25

and another notice dated 13-02-2017 demanding further sum of Rs.17,75,610/-. The petitioner has called

¶26

¶27

in question these demand notices on several grounds urged in the petition. The petitioner has submitted a reply to those notices which do not contain what is contended in the petition. The petitioner has not utilized the holding of advertisement between the dates on which the demands are made. Therefore, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, a detailed representation with regard to the claim of the petitioner, if submitted, would meet its appropriate consideration.

¶28

I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit a detailed representation in furtherance of the reply given earlier and the BBMP would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the justification of the petitioner against the demands so made. Till the representation of the petitioner bears consideration at the hands of the

¶29

¶30

respondents/BBMP, no action prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner would be taken.

¶31

The petitioner will be at liberty to submit the representation within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with requisite documents against the claim and the BBMP will consider the said representation and pass appropriate order within 4 weeks thereafter in accordance with law.

¶32

With the aforesaid observations, while

¶33

declining to the interfere with the demand, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SJK

M/S August Ventures Private Limited v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S August Ventures Private Limited v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. (Mrs.) Chitralekha. M. R. Vs Mysuru City Corporation

Ms Sangeetha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M S Shiva Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Miss N Parvathi Vs the Commissioner