The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging show cause notices for property tax as infructuous because the petitioners had already paid the difference tax amount under a One Time Settlement scheme following a spot inspection and report by the BBMP officer.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:40168 WP No. 3540 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES DATED 09.11.22 (SIX IN NUMBERS) BEARING NOs. ARO/CDL/W-126/PR-219/2020-21 TO ARO/CDL/W-126/PR-224/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-J TO O RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for respondent has filed a memo
stating that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 16.02.2024, the BBMP Officer has prepared a report after eliciting all necessary facts that would constitute ground for reopening self-assessment including making of measurement delineating the tenanted and self-occupied portion and as to the dates on which it is let out and the nature of usage. The BBMP is at liberty to put forth such other facts in the report as may be necessary.
spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner and the owner of the property and the property owner agreed to pay the difference tax amount under One time Settlement
(OTS) scheme and already paid the difference tax amount and produced the official remarks of the Assistant Revenue Officer. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner has already paid the difference tax amount. In view of the same, writ petition has become infructuous. The said fact is not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
is dismissed as having become infrucutous.
SD/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives after the petitioner paid the difference tax amount under One Time Settlement scheme?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. MANOHAR DAS V.
SMT. MEGHASHREE K.
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
ASHOK S.KINAGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
