Sri. Sidramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.12.2024 IN No. GaBhuE/UNiKa/DCB/KaGaGu/LeTha/2024-25/14697-58, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT No. 4, VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:9534-DB WP No. 34285 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

Issue notice.

¶36

The learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶37

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning a demand notice dated 12.12.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.69,59,121/- within a period of sixty days from that date. The impugned notice indicates that the same is based on an audit report for the year 2023-2024 in respect of stone quarry mining lease No.3079.

¶38

It is the petitioner's case that his father was a Class I PWD Contractor and was engaged in civil construction. He had carried on the quarrying activities for extracting building store for executing certain civil works. The petitioner claims that royalty payable on the building stones had been deducted from the bills raised by his father for executing the works. Therefore, the demand raised in impugned notice has already been recovered. It is also stated that his father expired on 09.07.2025. Therefore, he is pursuing the challenge to the impugned notice.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:9534-DB WP No. 34285 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

In view of the averments made in the present petition, we consider it apposite to direct that the impugned demand notice be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner is at liberty to respond to the same within a period of two weeks from today. The concerned authorities shall consider the petitioner's response and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

¶43

We clarify that nothing stated in this order should be construed as an expression of an opinion of the claims or assertions made by the petitioner.

¶44

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

¶45

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶46

SD/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

SD/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶48

Vmb List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23

Sri. Sidramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sidramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkataramana G v Vs Sri.Maheshwar Rao.M, IAS

Sri. N .R Manigantan Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna K S Vs Mr. D. Jayaram Director

Sri. Rajkumar Vs State of Karnataka

National Highways Authority of India Vs Mr S Abubakkar

Sri Shrishail Baragundi Vs the State of Karnataka