Disposed

Sri. S. Radhakrishna v. the Chief Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/3868/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging certain show cause notices under Section 144 of the BBMP Act. It directed that petitioners must respond to these notices before a final demand order is passed under Section 144[15][e] to ensure procedural justice.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed reserving liberty to file response to notices; Respondent directed to consider response and pass orders under Section 144[15][e].

Sri. S. Radhakrishna Vs the Chief Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. S. RADHAKRISHNA S/O LATE SEENAPPA, AGED 64 YEARS,

¶7

SMT. B.N. KOKILA W/O S. RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶8

SRI .B.R DARSHANA S/O S. RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶9

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 30, 7^TH C CROSS ROAD, 16^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH B BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560034.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. PARIKSHITH MALIYE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶16

N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ARAKERE SUB DIVISION, BBMP BANGALORE - 560076.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE (1) IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 144(15) OF THE BBMP ACT 2020, BEARING NO. ARO(ARK)/W-187/PR-391/2020-21 DATED 18/11/2023 FOR THE YEAR ASSESSMENT OF 2016-17, ISSUED BY THE R2 ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-E) AND 2) IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 144(15) OF THE BBMP ACT 2020, BEARING NO. ARO(ARK)/W187/PR-392/2020-21 DATED 18/11/2023 FOR THE YEAR ASSESSMENT OF 2017-18, ISSUED BY R2, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-F) AND 3) IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 144(15) OF THE BBMP ACT 2020, BEARING NO. ARO(ARK)/W-187/PR-432/2020-21, DATED 22/11/2023 FOR THE YEAR ASSESSMENT OF 2018-19, ISSUED BY R2, ARAKERE SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are the owners of the property

¶26

bearing No.23/599/448/338/1 to 4 of Doresanipalya, Bannerghatta Main Road, Arakere, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Subject Property ']. The petitioners have called in question the notices [ Annexure-E to J ] issued by the second respondent under Section 144[15][c] of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, the BBMP Act ']. This Court has called upon the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer to inspect the petitioners' property and file an Inspection Report. The Assistant Revenue Officer, in compliance with this direction, has filed an Inspection Report, and this Report shows a certain built-up area.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶29

Sri. Rajesh Mahale, the learned

¶30

Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Inspection Report and the consequential Revised Demand do not answer the petitioners' grievance viz. [a] that the property had only two floors prior to 2018-19, and it is only thereafter further constructions have been put up but these aspects are not considered, and [b] that tax is assessed based on per unit area value which is not disclosed, but the petitioners can place on record a copy of the registered lease deed which will show that the petitioners have a rental income of only Rs.2,00,000/- per month from the subject property which is substantially leased with the petitioners also occupying other floors.

¶31

Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the

¶32

learned counsel for the respondent-BBMP, is heard in the light of these assertions. The learned counsel, while pointing out that the petitioners have called in

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶34

question notices under Section 144[15][c] of the BBMP Act, emphasizes that these notices must culminate in a demand after orders under Section 144[15][e] of the BBMP Act and as such the petitioners have due opportunity to show cause against such orders.

¶35

There is considerable force in these

¶36

submissions offered in rebuttal. This Court is of the view that the petitioners must respond to the notices to avail opportunity that is contemplated under Section 144[15][d] of the BBMP Act, and the second respondent must consider the response filed by the petitioner. As such, the petitioners must be reserved with liberty to file response to the impugned notices calling upon the second respondent to consider the same and pass just orders for demands, if there is occasion for the same, under Section 156 of the BBMP Act. Hence, the following:

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:48923 WP No. 3868 of 2024

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file response to the impugned Show Cause Notices on

¶41

or before 15.01.2025. The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' response, if filed, and pass just orders under Section 144[15][e] of the BBMP Act. It is needless to observe that with the adjudication under Section 144[15][e] pending, there cannot be any precipitation.

¶42

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶43

NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Sri. S. Radhakrishna v. the Chief Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Radhakrishna v. the Chief 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

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

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

Sri S R Shankar Rao Vs the State of Karnataka