Disposed

S M Kannapa Automoblies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024WP/20608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions regarding rival title claims and tax demands under the BBMP Act, a single judge disposed of the matter by directing the jurisdictional Revenue Officer to verify a One-Time Settlement Scheme submission. The court specifically noted that payment of tax amounts offered before the scheme closure would not create equity in favor of the petitioner disputing title over oth

What did the court decide?

A direction was issued to the jurisdictional Revenue Officer to examine the OTS Scheme submission filed by the petitioner, compute the payable amount, and inform all petitioners of any further dues or

S M Kannapa Automoblies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20608 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶5

C/W

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 32713 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

W.P.No. 20608/2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S M KANNAPA AUTOMOBLIES PVT LTD

¶10

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

( A PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND CONTINUING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013) NO.2, DR. M. H MARIGOWDA ROAD NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE BENGALURU 560 027 KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IS DIRECTOR VAIBHAV NARANG

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUPAMA G HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE THROUGH ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP OFFICE, CORPROATION CIRCLE N R SQUARE, BENGALUR 560 002 KARNATAKA.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶18

ASSISTANT REVEHNUE OFFICER HOMBEGOWDANAGAR SUB DIVISION BBMP, CHICKPET DIVISION SOUTH ZONE, BBMP, 2^ND MAIN 2^ND CROSS, LIC COLONY, BYRASANDRA BENGALURU 560 011, KARANTAKA.

¶19

REVENUE OFFICER CHICKPET DIVSIION BBMP, 1^ST FLOOR BBMP SHOPPING COMPLEX J C ROAD, BENGALURU 560 002 KARNATAKA.

¶20

JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH ZONE) BBMP, 2^ND FLOOR BBMP COMPLEX 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGARA, BENGALUR 560 011 KARNATAKA.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. KESHAV M DATAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.06.2024 BEARING NO. DA (HOMBEGOWDANAGAR) WARD-145/EC.PR/49/24-25 AT ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS PREMISES (BUT ADDRESSED TO THIRD PARTIES); DIRECTION, RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM ADDRESSING ANY CORRESPONDENCE IN RESPECT OF (OR RAISING ANY TAX DEMANDS IN RESPECT OF) THE PREMISES AT NO. 2, DR.M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BENGALURU 560027 KARNATAKA WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER; DIRECTION, RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM RAISING ANY TAX DEMANDS IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES AT NO. 2, DR. M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BENGALURU 560027 KARNATAKA, WITHOUT THE R-1 FIRST HAVING DULY CONSIDERED AND

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶25

RULED ON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2024 AT ANNX-Q (UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 149(5) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020) IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED KATHA OF THE PREMISES; DIRECTION, RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM RAISING ANY TAX DEMANDS IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES AT NO. 2, DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, BENGALURU 560027 KARNATAKA FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO 27.06.2019 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE IS ANNEXURE-A INASMUCH AS THE SAME STANDS BARRED IN LAW.

¶26

IN W.P.No. 32713/2024

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

K. RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS S/O LATE. SRI. S.M KANNAPPA R/AT C/O N. SHEKHAR NO.323, KATHIK NILAYAM PARK ROAD, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, MYSORE-570008.

¶29

JAYAKUMAR SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE. SRI. K JAYAKUMAR R/AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶30

SMT B.K RADHA W/O LATE SRI. K. JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR,

¶31

BANGALORE-560027.

¶32

SRI N. BHANUPRAKASH S/O LATE. K NANDINI AND

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶34

LATE. S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶35

SRI. N. DINESH S/O LATE. K NANDINI AND LATE. S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶36

SRI. N. GANESH S/O LATE. K NANDINI AND LATE. S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶37

SRI. N. MAHESH S/O LATE. K NANDINI AND LATE. S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.104, 1^ST FLOOR,

¶38

A WING, ORCHID 4, GREEN CITY 3, GAWSI MANIPUR, NAGPUR 441108, MAHARASHTRA ALSO AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶39

SRI. N. VENKATESH S/O LATE. K NANDINI AND LATE. S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.1212, RINAL AL SHARJAH TOWER, MAJAZ 1, SHARJAH, UNITED ARAB

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶41

EMIRATES ALSO AT 387/A, BANGIAPPA GARDENS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.

¶42

…PETITIONERS

¶43

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶44

AND:

¶45

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP OFFICE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, N. R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.

¶46

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, HOMBEGOWDANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, CHICKPET DIVISION, SOUTH ZONE, BBMP, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, LIC COLONY, BYRASANDRA BENGALURU 560 011.

¶47

REVENUE OFFICER, CHICKPET DIVISION, BBMP, 1^ST FLOOR, BBMP SHOPPING COMPLEX, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶48

ZONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BBMP, 2^ND FLOOR, BBMP COMPLEX, 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU 560 011.

¶49

…RESPONDENTS

¶50

(BY SRI.KESHAV M. DATAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶51

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶52

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶53

RECORDS QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.07.2024 (ANNX-P) ISSUED BY THE ZONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER (SOUTH), BBMP, R-4 HEREIN.

¶54

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

The petitioners have rival claims to the lands in Sy.No.15 of Annipura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [which is now within the BBMP limits] . The petitioners have been served with the demands under Section 144(15) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP Act' ]. In W.P.No.20608/2024, this Court has granted interim order on 01.08.2024 staying the different demands impugned by these petitioners subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The petitioners have not only

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶59

deposited such amount but have also paid a further sum of Rs.74,35,213/-.

¶60

Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned Senior

¶61

Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024, is

¶62

on record to state that this additional sum of Rs.74,35,213/- has been offered much before 30.11.2024 to avail the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme [ OTS ] which has lapsed with effect from 01.12.2024. The learned Senior Counsel emphasizes that, notwithstanding the rival claims of title to the subject property, the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer will have to examine the application filed to avail OTS. When queried, the learned Senior Counsel is categorical that the petitioner does not propose to seek any equity over the other petitioners only because tax is offered under OTS.

¶63

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶64

Sri Anandarama, who leads for the other

¶65

petitioners in W.P.No.32713/2024, is heard in the light of this categorical stand, and the learned counsel cannot take any exception with the petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024 offering to pay tax to answer demand under OTS or even otherwise so long as this petitioner does not claim any equity. However, demand notices impugned in each of these petitions admittedly have different values.

¶66

This Court is of the considered view that

¶67

these submissions restrict the nature of dispute in the present proceedings, and the disposal of the petitions must be considered accordingly. Admittedly, the impugned demand notices have different values. If the demand is higher in terms of the demand called in question in W.P.No.20608/2024, an effort is made to take a stand that demand impugned in the petition in WP No. 32713/2024 is lesser because it is with reference

¶68

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶69

to OTS. However, this Court is persuaded to accept

¶70

this submission, because, as canvassed by Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, the computation for availing the benefit under OTS is independent of any demand pending and is to be computed by the assessee [ occupier/owner ], and this remains uncontroverted.

¶71

However, the details of the computation

¶72

by the petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024 to pay a total sum of Rs.1,49,35,213/- must be examined by the jurisdictional Revenue Officer and inform the petitioner/s whether the right amount is offered in terms of the Scheme and if not offered, the further amount which must be offered, or if a higher amount is offered, the decision to set off against future tax liabilities. This exercise must be completed to extend the benefit of OTS because the amount has been offered prior to the closure of the Scheme and by a person who would admittedly be an occupier though the right to occupy is disputed by the petitioners in

¶73

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶74

the other writ petition. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

[A] The petition stands disposed of directing the jurisdictional Revenue Officer to examine the details filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024 offering a sum of Rs.1,49,35,213/- under the OTS Scheme and communicate to the petitioners [ both in WP No. 20608/ 2024 and W.P.No.32713/2024 ] if any further amount

¶77

if payable under the OTS Scheme or the set off that would be allowed if excess amount is paid.

¶78

[B] The petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024 is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional Revenue Officer within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order

¶79

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:52112 WP No. 20608 of 2024 C/W WP No. 32713 of 2024

¶80

and the jurisdictional Revenue Officer is directed to communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶81

[C] It is observed that payment of the amount

¶82

so far or any further amount, including set off that could be allowed, cannot create any equity in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.20608/2024.

¶83

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶84

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶85

¶86

ct:sr

S M Kannapa Automoblies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S M Kannapa Automoblies Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

M/S Eih Limited Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt. H v Veena Vs the Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

K Revanasiddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vyshnavi Construction Vs State of Karnataka

Sri L Shivanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashwamedha Energy and Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka