Partly allowed

Sri G N Ramanath v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2024WP/4827/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Property owner challenged six show cause notices for property tax reassessment (2016-17 to 2021-22) and a subsequent attachment order as barred by the five-year limitation in Section 144(16) of the BBMP Act, 2020. The Court held the notice for 2016-17 was time-barred and set aside that notice and the attachment order, partly allowing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri G N Ramanath Vs Bruhath Bengaluru… — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4827 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G N RAMANATH S/O LATE SRI T A NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O NO. 303, II FLOOR, GOLD CREST APARTMENT, 1^ST D MAIN ROAD, OLD BINNY MILL ROAD, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002

¶14

JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YALAHANKA ZONE, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560092.

¶15

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN, WARD NO. 4 BENGALURU-560064.

¶16

REVENUE INSPECTOR BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶18

WARD NO. 4 BENGALURU-560064.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 108 A OF KMC ACT, 1976 (PURPORTED TO BE DATED 16/06/2022) BEARING NO. ARO (ST)/W-4/PR-82/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXUREC, ARO (ST)/W-4/PR-83/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXURE-C1, ARO (ST)/W-4/PR-84/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXURE-C3, ARO (ST)/W4/PR-85/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXURE-C3, ARO (ST)/W-4/PR86/2020-21, VIDE ANNEXURE-C4, ARO (ST)/W-4/PR-87/202021, VIDE ANNEXURE-C5 AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging

¶26

the show cause notices vide Annexures-C to C-5 and Annexures-D to D5 and order of attachment of immovable properties dated 30.01.2024 vide Annexure-E.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶28

Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

¶29

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.686, 3^rd A cross, Opposite Sheshadripuram College, Yelahanka Satellite Town, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, measuring 40X60 ft. It is contended that the said property was purchased from the Karnataka Housing Board initially under lease cum sale deed dated 10.01.1985 and later the absolute sale deed was registered on 26.09.2006. The petitioner had put up construction of basement floor with plinth area of 1820 sq.ft in the year 1986 and it was used for residential purpose. The petitioner had put up construction of ground floor with plinth area of 1620 sq.ft in the year 2006 and the ground floor was let out to Indian Overseas Bank in the year 2008. The petitioner had paid the property tax regularly to the BBMP as per the self assessment scheme.

¶30

The respondent No.4 handed over 6 antedated

¶31

show cause notices under Section 108A of Karnataka

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶34

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC Act') (purported to be dated 16.06.2022) for the years 2016-17 to 2021-22 to the tenant in the ground floor on 23.11.2023, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why the order of re-assessment should not be confirmed. On the receipt of the show cause notices vide Annexures-C to C5, the petitioner sought for information under RTI regarding tenure of previous and present Assistant Revenue Officers. The respondent No.3 passed order under Section 144 (15)(e) of the BBMP Act, 2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay the property tax as mentioned in Annexures C to C5 and passed the order on 11.12.2023 as per Annexures D to D5. The revenue Inspector, passed the order dated 30.01.2024 for attachment of immovable properties under Section 156 of the BBMP act, 2020. It is contended that method of calculation adopted by the BBMP in the show cause notices is erroneous. Hence, the show cause notices and orders dated 11.12.2023 are arbitrary and contrary to Section 144 (16) of the BBMP Act. Hence, on these

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶37

grounds, prays to allow the writ petition insofar as reassessment for the year 2016-17 only.

¶38

The respondents have not filed any statement of objection.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of Section 144(16) of the BBMP Act, the assessment or reassessment under Section 144 was not be made after following the time limit i.e., 5 years after filing the tax return under the section. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has issued a demand notice after 5 years from the filing tax return. Hence, the claim made by the petitioner is barred by time and he further submits that the petitioner had availed One Time Settlement facility. Hence, show cause notice issued for the assessment year 2016-17 is barred by time. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition in part.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶43

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents

¶44

supports the show cause notice vide Annexure-C and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶45

Perused the records and considered the

¶46

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶47

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had put up construction of basement floor with a plinth area of 1820 sq.ft in the year 1986 and was using for residential purpose. The petitioner had put up construction of the ground floor with plinth area 1620 sq.ft in the year 2006. In order to establish that the petitioner had put up the construction of the ground floor in the year 2006, produced endorsement issued by the City Municipal Council, Yelahanka and the petitioner had let out the ground floor to the Indian Overseas Bank in the year 2008. The petitioner paid the property tax as per the self assessment scheme for the petition schedule property from 2016-17 to 2023-24. The respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice under Section 108-A of the Karnataka

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶50

Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and the same was served on the tenant of the petitioner demanding the difference of property tax, calling upon the petitioner as to why the order of reassessment should not be confirmed. The respondent No.3 passed the order under Section 144 (15) (e) of the BBMP Act, 2020, calling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of property tax as mentioned in the show cause notice.

¶51

From the perusal of Annexures-C to C-5, the respondents have issued show cause notice for the assessment year 2016-17 to 2021-22 and further the Revenue Inspector, Yelahanka Satellite town, passed the order dated 30.01.2024 for attachment of immovable property under Section 156 of BBMP Act, 2020 attaching the petition schedule property for the non-payment of alleged property tax. Though the petitioner has taken the contention that the show cause notice vide Annexure-C is of the assessment year of 2016-17, the notice was issued on 16.06.2022 and same was served on the tenant of the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶54

petitioner on 23.11.2023. If the said show cause notice is taken into consideration, as per Section 144 (16) of the

¶55

BBMP Act, which provides for assessment and reassessment of property which reads as under:

¶56

Section 144(16): An assessment or re-assessment under this section shall not be made after the following time limits.-

¶57

(i) Five years after filing the tax return under this section;

¶58

(ii) Five years after the evidence of facts, sufficient in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner or the authorized officer to justify making of the re-assessment, comes to its knowledge, whichever is later.

¶59

From the perusal of Section 144(16) of the Act,

¶60

which contemplates the assessment of unassessed

¶61

property or reassessment of the property already paying property tax made at any time when evasion is noticed. For the said assessed or unassessed property applicable penalty or interest time shall be limit to 5 years even if the unassessment or under assessment of property exceeds 5

¶62

years.

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶64

Admittedly, in the instant case, Annexure-C exceeds 5 years from the date of under assessment of the property. The respondent without considering Section 144(16) of the BBMP Act, issued a show cause notice on 16.06.2022 to the petitioner and the said notice was served on the tenant of the petitioner on 23.11.2023. The said show cause notice issued by the BBMP is more than 5 years from the year of assessment. Hence, BBMP has committed an error in issuing show cause notice and the same is contrary to Section 144(16) of BBMP Act, 2020. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had availed One Time Settlement facility for a period of 5 years except for the assessment year of 2016-17.

¶65

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶68

10 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:31789 WP No. 4827 of 2024

¶70

Impugned orders vide Annexure-C dated 16.06.2022 passed by respondent No.1 and Annexure-E dated 30.01.2024 passed by

¶71

respondent No.4, are hereby set aside.

¶72

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶73

sks

Sri G N Ramanath v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri G N Ramanath v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kalavathi Sonegar Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri v Narayan Bhat Vs Sri v Krishna Bhat

Smt Ashs Rani Vishwas Vs Bbmp

M/S. Veevee Controls Private Limited Managing Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Yuvaraj D Vs the Commissioner Bbmp