Disposed

M/S Fortune Associates v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022WP/7434/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, before Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad, disposed of a writ petition challenging a Motor Vehicle Lifetime Tax notice issued over four years late. The Government Advocate submitted that the notice was for extending an opportunity, not for final adjudication, leading the Court to dispose of the matter without further ado.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of taking the submissions on record.

M/S Fortune Associates Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7434/2022 (T-MVT)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M/S FORTUNE ASSOCIATES NO.95, GOLD SIGNATURE SF-3 2ND FLOOR, MOSQUE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. KAREEM AMJAD KHAN.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT OFFICE AT NO.153, 1ST FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. KARNATAKA, INDIA.

¶12

ASST., REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1 BENGALURU (CENTRAL), BENGALURU - 560 012.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 07.03.2022 BEARING NO. RTO/BNG/C/NT/KA01MQ9786/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY R2.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has impugned Notice dated 07.03.2022 [Annexure-B] issued by the second respondent to appear before him as regards nonpayment of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Lifetime Tax for the purchase of Motor Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-MQ-9786. The petitioner’s grievance with the impugned notice is that the Notice is issued without reasoning after a lapse of more than four years from the date of purchase.

¶19

Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional

¶20

Government Advocate submits that the impugned notice is only to extend an opportunity and no orders would be

¶21

¶22

made without extending opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, and the apprehension that there would be precipitous steps even before the orders are passed is unfounded. The learned Additional Government Advocate also submits that as per his instructions, the proceedings are not yet complete, and a fresh notice of hearing would be extended before a decision is taken.

¶23

This Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of taking these submissions on record, and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶24

Sd/- JUDGE

¶25

AN/-

M/S Fortune Associates v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Fortune Associates v. State of Karnataka

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

Krishna Raj Vs Smt Lalithamma

Gangalakshmamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Raja Naik Vs the Commissioner

M/S Kishore Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (APPEALS-3)

Smt B R Hamsaveni Vs M/S Geodesic Techniques Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Rakesh B Patel Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax