Petitioners challenged an order demanding a large tax deposit before hearing an appeal. The Court held the Appellate Authority must consider the refund of excess deposits if petitioners succeed, even if liability exceeds five years. Petition discharged.
Petition disposed; Appellate Authority directed to consider refund of deposit if appeal succeeds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:49543 WP No. 13826 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13826 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:49543 WP No. 13826 of 2024
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.02.2024 IN NO VA 188/PR/583/2023-24, PASSED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 NO. ARO(BMH)/W-188/PR-480/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B), ARO(BMH)/W-188/PR-481/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B1), ARO(BMH)/W-188/PR-482/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B2), QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 8.11.22 ARO(BMH)/W-188/PR-483/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B3), ARO(BMH)/W-188/PR-484/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B4) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:49543 WP No. 13826 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved by the second respondent's Endorsement dated 06.02.2024 [Annexure-A]. The second respondent, by this Endorsement, has informed the petitioners that for considering their appeal as against the concluded assessment under Section 144[15][e] of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020, the petitioners must deposit Rs.6,61,622/-.
Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners will deposit Rs.6,61,622/- as stipulated in the impugned Endorsement but in the event the petitioners succeed in the appeal, the Appellate Authority must refund the amount deposited because, according to the petitioners, the tax liability cannot be more than Rs.80,612/-. Sri Pawan Kumar,
NC: 2024:KHC:49543 WP No. 13826 of 2024
the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, is heard.
It suffices for this Court to observe for the disposal of the petition that the Appellate Authority must consider not only the merits of the petitioners' appeal but also the question whether the petitioners must be refunded the amount paid in the event they succeed in the appeal or such amount must be adjusted towards future taxes which could be for more than five to six years especially when certain rebates are allowed if tax is paid before a particular date at the beginning of the year.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Authority must consider the refund of the deposit if the petitioners succeed in their appeal and the tax liability is less than the deposit amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. MUTHYALA KARTHIK
SMT. CHANDRAKALA KAKUMANI
SMT. MUTHYALA ERAMMA
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE
ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BOMMANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
