M/S Mohan & Co. Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Mohan & Co. Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the notice dated 14.08.2017 (Annexures-A & B); consequently, the demand show cause notices dated 08.01.2018 (Annexures-C & D), the demand show cause notices dated 16.01.2018 (Annexures-E & F) and the endorsement dated 17.02.2018 (Annexure-G) were quashed. The prayer for mandamus to recalculate property tax and refund excess tax (relief (e)) was not acted upon in the operative order.

Issue for consideration

Whether, when a random scrutiny was allegedly undertaken under Sub-Section (13) of Section 108A of the KMC Act, the respondents could have issued a notice and passed an order under Sub-Section (12) of Section 108A.

Court's answer

Fiscal statutes must be strictly followed; the power to levy tax, reassess tax, or issue notice must be exercised exactly in the manner provided under the statute, and the authority cannot travel beyond the provision under which it claims to act nor justify its action on a different provision after issuing the notice.

Ratio / Principle

Refusal by the occupier to allow the authorised officer to enter and inspect the premises is the condition precedent for invoking Sub-Section (12) of Section 108A; absent such refusal, the jurisdiction to resort to a best judgment assessment under that provision would not arise.

Key takeaways

Sub-Section (13) of Section 108A is triggered by the authorised officer forming reasons to believe, upon random scrutiny of a return furnished and deemed assessed, that the return is incorrect or underassessed resulting in evasion of property tax; it is a self-contained mechanism for re-assessment, and without such formation of belief its jurisdiction would not arise.ratio¶¶83
If a reference to the wrong sub-section is merely a clerical error and the substance of the action clearly falls under the correct provision, the mistake may not be fatal; but if the notice is issued under a wrong provision and the conditions of that provision are not satisfied, the defect goes to the root of jurisdiction.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Property tax - Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike - Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, S.108A - Notice cum order dated 14.08.2017 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer under Sub-Section (12) of S.108A (best judgment assessment upon occupier's refusal of inspection), while respondents contended the action flowed from a random scrutiny under Sub-Section (13) - Fiscal statute must be strictly followed; the authority must act strictly within the provision invoked and cannot justify action taken under one sub-section by subsequently referring to another - Refusal of entry for inspection is the condition precedent for S.108A(12); absent such refusal, jurisdiction for best judgment assessment thereunder would not arise - S.108A(13) operates upon formation of 'reasons to believe', during random scrutiny of a deemed-assessed return, that it is incorrect or underassessed resulting in evasion, and provides a self-contained re-assessment procedure - The two sub-sections operate in entirely different situations; a notice under S.108A(12) cannot be treated as one under S.108A(13), and substitution of one sub-section for another, going to the root of jurisdiction, cannot be permitted - Writ petition allowed; notice dated 14.08.2017 (Annexures-A & B), demand show cause notices dated 08.01.2018 and 16.01.2018 and endorsement dated 17.02.2018 quashed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

®

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9235 OF 2018 (LB-TAX)

BETWEEN:

M/S MOHAN & CO A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 48, KASTURBA ROAD, WARD NO 76/117, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR RANJITH MAL CHORDIA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, N R SQUARE BENGALURU- 560002

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHANTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION 12^TH FLOOR, P U B BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICES DATED 14.8.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B TO THE W.P AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notices dated 14.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A & B to the Writ Petition:

(b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand show cause notices dated 08.01.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C & D to the Writ Petition;

(c) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand show cause notices dated 16.01.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E & F to the Writ Petition;

(d) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 17.02.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G to the Writ Petition;

(e) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to calculate the exact property tax keeping in view the objections filed by the Petitioner and to grant the refund of the excess property paid or adjust excess property tax towards the future taxes:

(f) grant such other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

The Petitioner is challenging a notice cum order dated 14.08.2017 issued under Sub Section 12 of Section 108A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the KMC Act, 1976').

The submission of Sri.Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that ingredients of Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act are not attracted. Inasmuch as, there was no notice which had been issued to the Petitioner to inspect the premises nor was there any refusal on the part of the Petitioner requiring the respondents to pass an order under Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act. He further submits by relying on Sub-Section 14 of Section 108A of the KMC Act, that an assessment or reassessment shall not be made after three(3) years of filing of the tax return. Therefore, he submits that the impugned notice is required to be quashed.

Sri. S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the notice has been issued after a random scrutiny and it is the ingredients of Sub-Section 13 of Section 108A of the KMC Act, which is required to be considered and not the ingredients of Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act. His submission is that the tax returns which had been filed by the Petitioner have been taken up for random scrutiny, the authorised officer was of the belief that an incorrect assessment had been made and as such, notice has been issued. In that

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

regard, he submits that there was no requirement to issue notice to inspect the premises, Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act.

Heard Sri.Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether, when a random scrutiny was allegedly undertaken under SubSection (13) of Section 108A of the KMC Act, the respondents could have issued a notice and passed an order under Sub-Section (12) of Section 108A.

Section 108A of the KMC Act is a provision relating to levy and assessment of property tax. It is a fiscal provision. It is well settled that fiscal statutes must be strictly followed. The power to levy tax, reassess tax, or issue notice must be exercised exactly in the manner provided under the statute. The authority must act strictly within the provision under which it claims to act. It cannot travel beyond it, nor can it justify its action on a different provision after issuing the notice.

In the present case, the respondents contend that the notice was issued pursuant to a random scrutiny under Sub-Section (13) of Section 108A. However, the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

impugned notice and order clearly state that they have been issued under Sub-Section (12) of Section 108A.

This difference cannot be treated lightly. Sub-Section (12) and Sub-Section (13) are distinct provisions. They may operate in different circumstances and may require different conditions to be satisfied before action is taken. Therefore, if a notice is issued under Sub-Section (12), the authority must show that the requirements of SubSection (12) were satisfied. It cannot later contend that the action is justified under Sub-Section (13), if that is not what is mentioned in the notice.

The Court must therefore examine whether the reference to Sub-Section (12) in the impugned notice is merely a typographical mistake, or whether it affects the very basis of the action. If it is only a clerical error and the substance of the action clearly falls under the correct provision, the mistake may not be fatal. However, if the notice is issued under a wrong provision and the conditions of that provision are not satisfied, the defect would go to the root of jurisdiction.

In matters relating to taxation, compliance with the statute is essential. The authority must clearly show the source of its power and must strictly act within it. If it fails to do so, the action cannot be sustained.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"Sub-Section (12):- If the occupier of the property, refuses to allow the authorised officer to enter to inspect the premises, the officer after giving reasonable opportunity shall record the refusal and shall proceed to assess the property to the best of his judgement:

Provided that in the case of buildings used as human dwelling due regard shall be paid to the social and religious customs of the occupiers and no apartment in the actual occupancy of a woman shall be entered until she has been informed that she is at liberty to withdraw and every reasonable facility has been afforded to her for withdrawing."

A plain reading of Sub-Section (12) makes its scope clear. The provision comes into operation only when the occupier of the property refuses to permit the authorised officer to enter and inspect the premises. The refusal to allow inspection is therefore the condition precedent for invoking this sub-section.

Once such refusal occurs, the statute requires the officer to do two things: first, to give reasonable opportunity and record the fact of refusal; and second, thereafter to proceed to assess the property to the best of his judgment. In other words, a “best judgment assessment” under Sub-Section (12) is not the normal rule. It is a consequence that follows only when inspection is obstructed.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

The proviso further safeguards privacy in the case of residential buildings. It mandates due regard to social and religious customs and imposes specific restrictions where a portion of the premises is in the actual occupancy of a woman. This reinforces that Sub-Section (12) deals specifically with situations involving physical inspection and refusal thereof.

Thus, Sub-Section (12) is attracted only in a limited and specific circumstance, namely, refusal of entry for inspection. Absent such refusal, the jurisdiction to resort to a best judgment assessment under this provision would not arise.

Sub-Section 13 of Section 108A of the KMC Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

"Sub-Section 13):- Upon random scrutiny, if the authorised officer has reasons to believe that any return furnished, which is deemed as assessed, is incorrect or has been underassessed resulting in evasion of property tax,-

(a) may, on the basis of information available on record and after physical inspection proceed to reassess the property, in the manner provided under this section;

(b) if the tax-reassessed is more than 5 per cent than the tax remitted alongwith the returns, the evaded tax shall be payable together with a penalty not less than twice the tax so evaded payable alongwith interest for the difference in tax paid and payable calculated at 24 per cent per annum;

(c) if upon inspection and re-assessment as made under this section by the Commissioner or the

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

authorised officer, shall issue a notice of reassessment to the tax payer demanding that the tax shall be paid within thirty days of the service of the notice and after giving the tax payer the opportunity of show cause in writing;

(d) the owner or occupier may either accept the property tax assessed and the penalty levied or send objections to the Commissioner or the authorised officer within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the notice under this sub-section;

(e) the Commissioner or the authorised officer shall consider the objections and pass such orders either confirming or revising such assessment within a period of sixty days from the date of filing objections and a copy of the order shall be sent to the owner or occupier concerned ."

A plain reading of Sub-Section (13) shows that it operates in a different field altogether. It comes into play upon a random scrutiny of returns that have already been filed and deemed to have been assessed. If, during such scrutiny, the authorised officer has reasons to believe that the return is incorrect or that there has been underassessment resulting in evasion of property tax, he may proceed to re-assess the property.

Unlike Sub-Section (12), which is triggered by refusal of entry for inspection, Sub-Section (13) is triggered by the formation of “reasons to believe” during random scrutiny of returns. The focus here is not obstruction of inspection, but possible under-assessment or evasion disclosed upon scrutiny of the return.

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

Sub-Section (13) also provides a complete procedure for re-assessment. It contemplates inspection, reassessment, issuance of notice, opportunity to show cause, filing of objections, and passing of a reasoned order. It further provides for levy of penalty and interest where the reassessed tax exceeds the tax originally remitted beyond the prescribed margin.

Thus, Sub-Section (13) is a self-contained mechanism for re-assessment based on random scrutiny and suspected under-assessment. Its foundation is the existence of “reasons to believe” that the return is incorrect or that there has been evasion. Without such formation of belief, the jurisdiction under this sub-section would not arise.

Upon examining both the sub-sections, it is clear that they operate in entirely different situations. Sub-Section (12) of Section 108A applies where the authorised officer seeks to inspect the premises and the occupier refuses to permit such inspection. It is only upon such refusal that the officer is empowered to record the refusal and proceed to make a best judgment assessment. Thus, the foundation for invoking Sub-Section (12) is obstruction of inspection.

On the other hand, Sub-Section (13) applies in a different context. It comes into operation when, upon random scrutiny of a return already filed and deemed assessed, the authorised officer forms a reason to believe that the

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

return is incorrect or that there has been underassessment resulting in evasion of property tax. This situation has nothing to do with refusal of inspection. It is based on scrutiny of returns and suspected evasion.

There is also a fundamental difference in the nature of power exercised under the two provisions. Under SubSection (12), what is contemplated is a best judgment assessment. This arises in a case where inspection has been prevented and there is no proper basis available to assess the property due to such refusal. In contrast, SubSection (13) contemplates a reassessment. Reassessment presupposes that there is already an assessment on record based on the return filed, and that such assessment is now sought to be revised because of suspected under-assessment or evasion.

Therefore, under Sub-Section (12), there may not be a valid assessment on record capable of being revised; the officer proceeds to assess to the best of his judgment due to non-cooperation. Under Sub-Section (13), there is already a deemed assessment based on the return, and the statute provides a structured procedure for reopening and reassessing it.

These distinctions are clear and apparent on the face of the statute. In view of such clear differences, a notice issued under Sub-Section (12) cannot be treated as one under Sub-Section (13), nor can one provision be

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:10404 WP No. 9235 of 2018

HC-KAR

substituted for the other. In matters of taxation, the statute must be strictly followed. The authority must act strictly under the provision invoked. It is not permissible to justify an action taken under one sub-section by subsequently referring to another.

Since this issue goes to the root of jurisdiction, and Section 108A being a fiscal provision must be strictly construed, substitution of one sub-section for another cannot be permitted. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed .

ii) A certiorari is issued as such the notice dated 14.08.2017 at Annexures-A and B are quashed.

iii) Consequently, the demand show cause notice dated 08.01.2018 at Annexures-C and D and, the demand show cause notice dated 16.01.2018 at Annexures-E and F, and the endorsement dated 17.02.2018 at Annexure-G, are quashed.

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

PHM

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32