Allowed

Dr Sreeranga P C v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/2449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged six show cause notices for property tax from 2017-18 onwards issued by BBMP after they purchased the property in 2022. The court permitted them to file tax payment receipts for prior years, directing reconsideration while enabling One Time Settlement benefit.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file tax receipts for 2017-18 to 2021-22; second respondent to consider proof and issue demand if warranted, enabling OTS benefit for all years.

Dr Sreeranga P C Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:45152 WP No. 2449 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2449 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR SREERANGA P C S/O DR P R CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

DR NAVIKALA K W/O DR P R CHIDANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.446 SRI KANHIYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-96

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. P C SUNITHA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER

¶16

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CORPORATIO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560038

¶17

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER NAGAPURA SUB DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU-10

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45152 WP No. 2449 of 2024

¶20

REVENUE OFFICER

¶21

(MAHALAKSHMIPURA) DIVISION OFFICE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 12TH MAIN ROAD, 11TH CRSOS, NAGAPURA BENGALURU-560086

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (SIX IN NUMBER) ALL DATED 05/12/2023, WHICH ARE1) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W-67/PR-299/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 UNDER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY R2.2) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W-67/PR-300/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 UNDER ANNEXUREC1 ISSUED BY R2.3) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W67/PR-301/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 UNDER ANNEXURE-C2 ISSUED BY R2.4) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W-67/PR-302/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C3 ISSUED BY R2.5) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W-67/PR-303/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22 UNDER ANNEXUREC4 ISSUED BY R2.6) BEARING NO. ARO(NGP)W67/PR-304/2020-21 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23 UNDER ANNEXURE-C5 ISSUED BY R2.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:45152 WP No. 2449 of 2024

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner has impugned the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 144(15)(c) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act '] and these notices are for the years 2017-18 onwards. Ms. P. C. Sunitha, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits, as is canvassed on the previous occasion by Ms. Sumana Baliga, a learned standing counsel for the respondents, that the petitioners can avail One Time Settlement [OTS] benefit for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24.

¶31

However, Ms. P. C. Sunitha submits that the petitioners must not be saddled with any liability for the years preceding 2022-23 because they have purchased the property only in the year 2022. The learned counsel further submits that if the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest has discharged the tax liability for the previous years, the petitioners cannot be made liable for the same. In response, Ms. Sumana Baliga submits that if the petitioners

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:45152 WP No. 2449 of 2024

¶34

were to file proof of payment of taxes for the years between 2017-18 and 2021-22 at the earliest, the second respondent will consider the same and issue notice, if indeed there could be any claim even for these years. The learned counsel states in addition that an early decision on this question would enable the petitioners not only to avail the benefit of OTS for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 but also for the previous years, if there is any reason for the same.

¶35

These submissions narrow down the dispute and there must be just orders to enable a decision on whether the petitioners must be made liable to pay tax dues for the years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 so that the petitioners could avail remedy under the benefit of OTS for all the years. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed permitting

¶38

the petitioners to file copies of the receipt for the taxes paid for the years 2017-18 to

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45152 WP No. 2449 of 2024

¶40

2021-22 and directing the second respondent to consider the same and communicate the decision and demand, if there is reason for the same, while enabling the petitioners to avail OTS benefit for all the relevant years.

¶41

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶42

Dr Sreeranga P C v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sreeranga P C 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

Mr. M R Seetharam Vs Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Chetana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh D Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shandrila Naidu Vs the Commissioner

Mr. H. J. Siwani Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Nagarajaiah Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike