Dismissed

A and 2 Promoters and Developers(P) Ltd., v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023WP/100776/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a building tax demand notice, the Koramangala bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the plea, noting the petitioner had paid the claimed amount and acknowledged tax liability for the relevant year.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed assailing the demand notice for building tax was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.

A and 2 Promoters and Developers(P) Ltd., Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11011 WP No. 100776 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100776 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

A & W PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LIMITED, A REGISTERED COMPANY, HAVING REGISTRATION NO.U45201KA2006PTC039566, HAVING OFFICE AT 409/4, BILGI PLAZA, COLLEGE ROAD, BELAGAVI, TAL: & DIST: BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY IT’S DIRECTOR, SRI MANOHAR S/O. NARAYAN WATVE, AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O: NANAWADI, BELAGAVI, TAL: & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELAGAVI, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TAL: & DIST: BELAGAVI. (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING ANNEXURE-A I.E. VARIATION DIFFERENCE AMOUNT BILL, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING BILL NO.55560 WITH BOOK NO.1112 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2010 TO 31.03.2016 DATED: NIL JANUARY 2016.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11011 WP No. 100776 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the demand notice issued by the respondent-corporation vide Annexure-A.

¶21

Respondent-corporation having noticed that petitioner who is owner of commercial building has disclosed wrong measurements taking undue advantage of self-assessment scheme ordered to re-measure the commercial property through the revenue officials. The revenue officials having re-measured found that petitioner has not paid building tax to an area measuring 14856 sq.ft. Therefore, it is in this context respondentcorporation overruling self-assessment has issued demand notice for a sum of Rs.1,19,175/-. The said demand notice is under challenge.

¶22

Respondent-corporation on receipt of notice has contested the proceedings and filed statement of objections. Learned counsel for respondent-corporation brought to the notice of this court that though demand

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11011 WP No. 100776 of 2016

¶24

notice is challenged, however, the petitioner has paid the amount claimed in the impugned notice by way of cheque No.813775 dated 21.01.2016. It is also indicated in the statement of objections that petitioner has paid tax for the previous year 2021-22. If these significant details are looked into, the fact that petitioner has paid tax for the previous year presupposes that he has acknowledged the tax due as indicated in the demand notice. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned demand notice vide Annexure-A.

¶25

The writ petition being devoid of merits stands

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

A and 2 Promoters and Developers(P) Ltd., v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A and 2 Promoters and Developers(P) Ltd., 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

Sri Nitesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Kumari Vijayalaxmi D/O. Ramrao Tatti Vs the Director

Deepali D/O Krishnarao Modagekar Vs the Belgaum Urban Development Authority

Kuppa Honnappa Naik, Vs the State of Karnataka

B v Nagarathnamma W/O Late B. Veeraiah Setty Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashidhar Vs the State of Karnataka