Allowed

The Twinkle v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024WP/11902/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partnership firm petitioned against a BBMP advertisement tax demand notice. Following the court's earlier batch disposal remanding similar matters to the issuing officers, this Court quashed the notice and remitted the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh reconsideration with objections and hearings.

What did the court decide?

Demand notice dated 02.11.2015 quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after objections within four weeks and hearing.

The Twinkle Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20069 WP No. 11902 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11902 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE TWINKLE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM SHOP NO.12, GROUND FLOOR NETAJI SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE BUILDING (P U BUILDING), M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560001. REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI NILESH D DESAI S/O LATE D M DESAI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VISHWANATHA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA 1. THE COMMISSIONER A BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE Location: High N R SQUARE BANGALORE – 560002. Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (EAST ) MARKET OFFICE AT 20^TH FLOOR M G ROAD, P U B BUILDING BANGALORE – 560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20069 WP No. 11902 of 2017

¶17

THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.2.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 OF THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE UNDER SECTION 134 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1976 AND RULE 3 M (11) AND 6(3) OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BYE LAW 2006 DEMANDING RS.4,99,200/VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for quashing of notice dated 02.11.2015 vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.2/Revenue Officer for payment of tax in respect of the advertisement.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents submit that in the batch of petitions in W.P.No.52699/2016 disposed of on 19.07.2023 arising out of the similar issue, this Court has remanded the matters to the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers, who have issued demand notice, for fresh consideration. Paragraph No.4 of the said order reads as follows:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:20069 WP No. 11902 of 2017

¶24

“4. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:

¶25

I. Wherever orders have been passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer or the Competent Authority, the same are set aside.

¶26

II. In respect of all other matters where challenges have been raised to the demand notices, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶27

III. All these matters stand remanded back to the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers who have issued demand notices/orders for re-consideration afresh. Opportunity shall be granted to the writ petitioners to file written objections and thereafter, the parties shall be heard and orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶28

IV. The petitioners herein are permitted to file written objections before the respective Assistant Revenue Officers/Competent Officers who have issued the demand notices/orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20069 WP No. 11902 of 2017

¶30

In view of the above, I passed the following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a) The writ petition is allowed .

¶33

b) Impugned notice dated 02.11.2015 vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶34

c) The matter stands remitted back to respondent No.2

¶35

with a direction to reconsider the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file written objection. After hearing the parties, respondent No.2 shall pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶36

d) The petitioner is directed to file objection within a

¶37

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

The Twinkle v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Twinkle v. the Commissioner

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

Riyazin Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Syed Kundmir Vs City Municipal Council

Hameed Vs Peraje Grama Panchayat

M/S Renacer Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Prajwal Raikar Vs City Municipal Council

Smt Nikhitha Vs Sri. Ashrith Kulai