Disposed

M/S Polisetty Somasundaram v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/6257/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an attachment order for property tax and a suspension of trade license. The court directed the Chief Commissioner to scrutinize the petitioner's filed returns under Section 144(14) of the BBMP Act to prevent unjustified tax demands, reserving liberty for the petitioner to use this order for scrutiny assessment.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Chief Commissioner to scrutinize the petitioner's filed returns under Section 144(14) of the BBMP Act; petitioner at liberty to file certified copy within two weeks.

M/S Polisetty Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6257 OF 2024 (LB-TAX)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S POLISETTY SOMASUNDARAM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVINT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, P.O BOX 54, GUNTUR ANDHRA PRADESH PIN CODE 522 001.

¶7

AND ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 46/4, NOVEL TECH PARK G B PALYA, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA PIN CODE 560 068.

¶8

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. BABU BASUVAN S/OMR. BASUVAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS (DOB 10/FEB/1991)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIJU ABRAHAM VERGHIS.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶16

N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU KARNATAKA

¶17

PIN CODE 560 002.

¶18

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HSR SUB DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU 560 068.

¶19

THE ASISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HSR SUB DIVSIION BRUHAT BENGALUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

¶20

PIN CODE 560 068.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, UNDER SECTION 156, BBMP ACT, 2020 DATED 14^TH OF FEBRUARY 2024, NO. JC(BOM)/PR-47 TO 51/2020-21, (ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER; B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED FORM 5A DEMAND NOTICE DATED THE 6^TH OF FEBRUARY 2024 BEARING NO. ARO(HSR)RIPR/W190/PR47/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B01), ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER. C) QUASH THE

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶26

IMPUGNED FORM 5B ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF TRADE LICENSE, DATED THE 06TH OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEARING NO. ARO(HSR)/RI-PR/W190/PR47/202021 (ANNEXURE-B02) ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER.D) DIRECT THE R1 TO ENSURE THAT THE R2 AND R3 FOLLOW THE NORMS AND GUIDELINES, AS PERMITTED IN LAW, TO CALCULATE, AND CATEGORIZE THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, UNDER CATEGORY V OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE BBMP, VIDE COMMR/BBMP-DC(REV)/5675/15-16, DATED THE 09^TH OF MARCH 2016. ANNX-M.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is the owner of a commercial property in Garvebhavipalya village, Hongasandra Dakhe, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru [ the subject property ]. The petitioner has called in question the Attachment Order [ Annexure-A ] issued by the second respondent under the provisions of Section 156 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act 2020 [for short, 'the BBMP

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶33

Act' ] attaching the subject property for a total claim of Rs.3,90,82,462/- as property tax and penalty. The petitioner has called in question this order essentially on the ground that the respondents have not provided with all details that would justify demand of tax and penalty as aforesaid.

¶34

This Court has directed inspection of the property and report is also filed. However, the respondents have taken coercive measures to seal the petitioner's property, and currently, the petitioner has availed the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme [ OTS Scheme ] and paid a total sum of Rs.1,00,59,317/- in full and final settlement of all the property tax arrears as of 31.03.2024.

¶35

Sri Shiju Abraham Verghis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has availed the benefit under OTS Scheme under duress and protest and that the petitioner's apprehension is that the respondents would continue

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶38

to raise a demand for the property taxes based on the details which are not shared with the petitioner and if such demand is raised, it is possible that the petitioner would be taxed unjustifiably. When queried, the learned counsel submits that the impugned attachment is for recovery of property taxes from the year 2016-17 to 2020-21 and the petitioner has discharged the liabilities under the OTS for these years and paid in advance the tax for the subsequent years based on the earlier returns filed.

¶39

Sri Bathe Gowda K.V., the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits, relying upon the copies of the show cause notices issued to the petitioner for the years commencing from 2016-17, that the petitioner has undeclared not just the built up area but also the area that is tenanted and the impugned order is a result of due show cause notice and adjudication

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶41

thereof as is contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Corporations Act/BBMP Act.

¶42

It is obvious from the submissions by Sri Shiju Abraham Verghis that the petitioner's cause is about a possible repeat of a demand without the details being shared. This Court, to ensure that there is no precipitation or a reason for further litigation on the ground that the respondents have not shared the details but continues to saddle the petitioner with the liability to pay higher property tax, is of the considered view that the Chief Commissioner [ or the authorized officer ] shall take up the returns filed by the petitioner for scrutiny and proceed further as is contemplated under the later provisions of Section 144 (14) of the BBMP Act. Hence, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a certified copy of this order with the Chief Commissioner [ or the authorized Officer ] to enable his

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:46293 WP No. 6257 of 2024

¶44

¶45

scrutiny assessment as is now enabled. The petitioner is at liberty to file a certified copy of this order as aforesaid within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof.

¶46

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶47

SA ct:sr

M/S Polisetty Somasundaram v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Polisetty Somasundaram v. the 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 S M Ramesh Vs the Chief Executioe Officer

Sri H.B. Basavaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Doddamuniyappa Vs Zilla Panchayat

Smt.H.S.Suma Vs the Commissioner

The Chief General Manager Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinay B N Vs the Commissioner