Allowed

Mrs. Uma D O v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/5515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged tax demands issued under the BBMP Act 2020 addressed to a purchaser regarding pre-acquisition commercial let-out. The Court quashed the demands but directed the Revenue Officer to issue fresh show-cause notices and inspect the property status.

What did the court decide?

The impugned tax demands dated 21/08/2023 under Section 144 of the BBMP Act are quashed. Liberty granted to respondents to issue fresh show cause notices.

Mrs. Uma D O Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43134 WP No. 5515 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5515 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. UMA D O W/O SRI BHAIRAPPA MP AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NAVULE, VINAYAKA NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA ALSO AT NO 58, 5TH MAIN ROAD, B BLOCK, SUBRAMANYA NAGARA BENGALURU.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, (BBMP), N R SQUARE BANGALORE - 560002.

¶14

THE REVENUE OFFICER BBMP OFFICE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER (ARO) MALLESHWARAM SUB DIVISION

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:43134 WP No. 5515 of 2024

¶18

MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560003.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1;

¶21

SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED / PASSED BY THE R4 AS FOLLOWING 1) DATED 21/08/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(MLW)W-66/PR471/2020-21, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND F1 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. 2) DATED 21/08/2023 BEARING NO. ARO(MLW)W-66/PR472/2020-21, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND G1 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the different Tax Demands under Section 144(15(e) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 [for short, ' the BBMP Act '] which pertains to the years commencing from 2020 - 2021. The impugned

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:43134 WP No. 5515 of 2024

¶29

orders/demands issued by the fourth respondent are produced as Annexures -F to M series.

¶30

Sri N. Ramakrishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2022 under the Sale Deed dated 08.09.2022 and the katha is also mutated in his favour but the notices are addressed to the erstwhile owner and the demand against the erstwhile owner is raised on the ground that the petitioner is liable to pay differential taxes because he has not declared that some portion of the property is let-out for commercial purposes and not declared the property as residential property.

¶31

This Court has permitted the Assistant Revenue Officer to inspect the property and file a Report, and such Report is placed on record. The demand is proposed to be justified on the ground that the ground floor portions are let-out for commercial purposes. Sri N.Ramakrishna, responding to the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:43134 WP No. 5515 of 2024

¶34

Report, submits that the proposed properties were indeed let-out but much prior to the year 2021; that the tenants have vacated when the petitioner has purchased the property and that the petitioner after his purchase has not let-out the property for commercial use and entire constructed area is in his occupation.

¶35

This Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, is of the considered view that the impugned Notices must be quashed but without prejudice to the respondents to issue fresh show case notice as is contemplated under Section 144 of the BBMP Act and conclude the proceedings if there is occasion for the same. Hence the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed and the

¶38

impugned Demands [Annexures-F to M series] under Section 144 (15)(e) of the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:43134 WP No. 5515 of 2024

¶41

BBMP Act are quashed but with liberty as

¶42

aforesaid.

¶43

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶44

SA ct:sr

Mrs. Uma D O v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Uma D O v. the State of Karnataka

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 K Girish Kumar Naidu Vs the Chief Commissioner of Bbmp

B Basavarajappa Vs Executive Officer Taluk Panchayath Shikaripura

Sri Immadi Nijaguna Swamy, Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok M D Vs the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri G H Sridhar Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt J Jayalakshmi Vs the Commissioner