Remanded

Sri M Purushotham v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023WP/12216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court set aside an order rejecting a refund claim due to delay without considering condonable circumstances. The matter was remitted to the respondent authority to pass a final order after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.08.2022 set aside; matter remitted to respondent No.2 to pass order within eight weeks after affording opportunity.

Sri M Purushotham Vs the State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 12216 OF 2023 (GM-ST/SN)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI M. PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE M NARASAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶8

SRI M. PATTABHI S/O LATE M. NARASAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶9

SRI N. SURESH S/O LATE M. NARASAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SRI M RAVI BABU S/O LATE M. NARASAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

SRI M. JANARDHAN S/O LATE M. NARASAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶13

ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/A NO.736, 18TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560070 …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR C. S.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶18

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION, BASAVANAGUDI REGISTRATION DISTRICT, BMTC BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, SRI VIDYANAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMMUNICATION DTD 29.08.2022 BEARING NO. DRB/DRI/IMPOUND /08/2022-23 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-2. ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR REFUND OF THE PENALTY AMOUNT OF RS 55,68,750 PAID ON THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DTD 12.10.2014 (ANNX-B)

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. Prasanna Kumar. C. S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶26

The learned High Court Government Pleader undertakes to appear for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶27

The petitioners is before this Court with a short grievance that while adjudicating on the application of the petitioners filed under Sections 37 and 38 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, seeking refund of excess penalty as the agreement of the sale dated 12.10.2004 respondent No.2 without providing an opportunity to the petitioners has rejected the same on the sole ground that the said application has been filed after the expiry of seven years.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

¶29

the grounds urged in the memorandum of the petition submits that in view of the Proviso to Section 44 of the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶32

Karnataka Stamp Act, respondent No.2 is duty bound to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to condone the delay, if any in seeking refund of the Stamp Duty and paid in excess in. He further submits that no notice has been issued to the petitioners for his say in the matter. In furtherance, he submits that the delay is in view of the fact that the agreement was subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.5388/2006 which was still pending consideration before the City Civil Court. He also brings to the notice of this Court, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.409/2021 dated 05.04.2022 in terms of which this Court had directed the respondent-State Government Revenue Department to adjudicate the issue with regard to the payment of Stamp Duty and Penalty in terms of Sections 37 and 38. Thus he submits that there was sufficient grounds and reasons for so called delay in seeking refund of excess payment of the Stamp Duty and Penalty, which has not been adverted to by respondent.No.2.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶35

Thus he submits that an opportunity be granted

¶36

to the petitioners by remitting the matter to respondent

¶37

No.2 to putforth his case.

¶38

In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that order passed by this Court at Annexure-C has not been taken into consideration by respondent No.2. She submits that, if given some time, respondent No.2 would consider the case of the petitioners afresh.

¶39

Submission is taken on record.

¶40

In that view of the matter, order at Annexure-A

¶41

dated 29.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2. Petitioners shall file his response/explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Respondent No.2 shall after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to explain the delay, shall pass the order in accordance with law taking into consideration the proviso to Section 44 of the Karnataka Stamp Act within an outer limit of eight weeks

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:46934 WP No. 12216 of 2023

¶43

¶44

from the date of the receipt of response from the

¶45

petitioners.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri M Purushotham v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Purushotham v. the 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

Sri Syed Basheer Ahmed Malik Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ashraf Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr Y B Shamanna Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri. B. M. Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka

B. M. Srinivasaiah Educational Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sumathi Vs Sri M Bakthavatsala