Partly allowed

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/3642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged reassessment orders and demand notices regarding property tax for 2016-17 to 2022-23. Court quashed the orders due to lack of notice for property inspection and failure to consider objections, remanding to the Assistant Revenue Officer.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Re-assessment Orders, Demand Notices, and Attachment Orders were quashed, and proceedings restored to the second respondent for reconsideration of petitioner's objections.

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bruhat… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3642 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S G.S. HOMES AND HOTELS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: NO.148, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. VIKAS BIHARILAL KUKREJA S/O. MR. BIHARILAL KUKREJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISH V. S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

VINAYAKA B V

¶15

Digitally signed byVINAYAKA B V Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.01.08 10:24:06+0530

¶16

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER VASANTANAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, SHIVAJINAGAR, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT OF APPROPRIATE NATURE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶22

OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 144(15)(E) OF THE BBMP ACT, 2020, FOR THE YEARS 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 AND 2022-23, BEARING NOS. ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-772/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-773/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR774/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-775/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/ W-110/PR-776/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-777/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-778/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-779/ 2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-780/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W110/PR-781/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-782/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-783/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-784/ 2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-785/2023-24 DATED 19.12.2023 I.E., ANNEXUERS-D, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12 AND D13 RESPECTIVELY. ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE YEARS 2016-17, 2017-18, 201819, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 AND 2022-23, BEARING NOS. ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-772/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-773/ 2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-774/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W110/PR-775/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-776/2023-24, ARO (VSN)/W-110/PR-777/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-778/ 2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-779/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W110/PR-780/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-781/2023-24, ARO (VSN)/W-110/PR-782/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-783/ 2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W-110/PR-784/2023-24, ARO(VSN)/W110/PR-785/2023-24 DATED 19/12/2023 I.E. ANNEXUERS-E, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E10, E11, E12 AND E13 RESPECTIVELY & ETC.,

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the relevant Companies Act and is the owner of properties in number 148/24 and 148/25 [with PID number 78–1– 148/24 and 78–1–148/25] on Infantry Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore [ the subject properties ]. The petitioner has called in question the different show cause notices, reassessment orders, demand notices, and attachment order. The proceedings are for the tax years between 2016–17 and 2022–2023. The show cause notices are produced as Annexure-C series, the reassessment orders are produced as Annexure–D series, the demand notices are produced as Annexure-E series and the attachment orders are produced as Annexure-G and G1.

¶29

The petitioner, with the service of show cause notices, which are dated 10.11.2023, has filed

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶32

response stating that it is in self-occupation of the subject properties and has not let out any portion and therefore the reassessment proceedings, which is essentially because of the assertion that the petitioner has let out the subject properties, will be untenable. The petitioner has reiterated this defence even when it is served with notice of the reassessment orders. The second respond has not referred to the same in the impugned reassessment orders or the attachment orders. The petitioner, apart from the afore ground, has also called in question the second respondent’s jurisdiction to commence re-assessment proceedings beyond the timelines contemplated under the provision of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [KMC Act] and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [BBMP Act].

¶33

The respondents have filed their

¶34

Statement of objections, and it is seen from this Statement that the respondents propose to rely upon an inspection of the property to justify the reason for reassessment viz ., that the petitioner has let out the subject properties to a

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶37

third party. The respondents also propose to justify the reassessment proceedings for the years from 2016-17. Mr. Harish V.S, the leaned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Sumana Baliga, the learned counsel for the respondents, are heard for final disposal in the light of the circumstances.

¶38

The petitioner is categorical that it is in self-occupation of the subject properties, and the respondents deny the same to assert that the petitioner has let out the properties to a certain third party. It will be irrefutable that if the respondents’ case is based on a factual aspect verified after a purportedly inspection, they should have caused notice of inspection to the petitioner as contemplated and both under the KMC Act and the BBMP Act, but there is nothing on record to justify that the subject properties are inspected with notice to the petitioner.

¶39

More importantly, the second respondent should have considered the petitioner’s objections before

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:48922 WP No. 3642 of 2024

¶42

proceeding to pass the reassessment order. The Court’s interference, therefore, must be confined to the impugned reassessment orders, the demand notices and order of attachment restoring the proceedings to the second respondent for due consideration of the petitioner’s objections. Hence, the following: -

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned Re-assessment Orders [ Annexure–D series ], Demand Notices [ Annexure–E series ], and the Attachment Orders [ Annexure–G and G1 ] are quashed restoring the proceedings to the second respondent for reconsideration as is required in law.

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

¶47

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 53

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., v. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G.S. Homes and Hotels 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri John David Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Varadaraju Vs Executive Officer

Manjunath Babu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. S. Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri S R Shankar Rao Vs the State of Karnataka