IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO.15586/2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
Brigade Hospitality Services Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
29th Floor, World Trade Center, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram – Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 55.
Represented by its Executive Director and CEO Mr.Vineet Verma.
…Petitioner (By Sri. M.Nikhilesh Rao, Advocate) AND:
1. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Hudson Circle, Bengaluru – 560002.
Represented by its Commissioner.
2. Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Arekere Subzone, Bommanahalli Zone, Bengaluru – 560002.
3. State of Karnataka, Represented by its Revenue Secretary, Vikasa Soudha, Bengaluru – 560001.
...Respondents (By Sri.S.N.Prashanth Chandra, Advocate for R1 and R2 Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned first notice dated 13.06.2018 vide Annx-A and the impugned second notice dated 13.06.2018 (signed on 28.11.2018) vide Annx-B both issued by R-2.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the demand notices issued by the respondent – BBMP calling upon the petitioner to pay tax as per notices annexed at Annexure- A dated 13.06.2018 and Annexure-B dated 13.06.2018 (signed on 28.11.2018). It is the case of the petitioner that they have been paying tax under the self-assessment scheme with respect to the building ‘MLR Convention Center’ from the year 2008 till date. It is further submitted that the calculation of tax under the self-
assessment scheme has not been objected to till date. However, notice came to be issued as per Annexure-A dated 13.06.2018 calling upon the petitioner to pay tax amounting to Rs.1,07,00,794/- with interest within 15 days.
2. Petitioner states that the communication came to be addressed as per Annexure-E on 20.07.2018 calling upon the respondent – BBMP to provide area calculation details as per the survey stated to have been conducted by the private agency, basis of arrival of figure and calculation of tax. It is stated that subsequently as per Annexure-B and another notice bearing date 13.06.2018 (signed on 28.11.2018) came to be issued without furnishing details sought for by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has addressed a communication at Annexure-F reiterating the earlier request to furnish information relating to the basis of re- calculation of the area. It is stated that there has been no response to the said communication and hence, petition has been filed.
3. The petitioner contends that the demand at Annexure-A specifies that there has been discrepancies in the measurement relating to the building and parking which is as follows:
Sl.No. Total area Area declared under the self-assessment scheme Measurement noticed at the time of survey 1. Building 40392 Sq.ft. 43420 2. Parking 7800 Sq.ft. 20461 4. Hence, it is contended that the demand that has been raised is pursuant to survey and unless the petitioner is furnished with survey report and other details leading to the area calculation, petitioner would not be in a position to make an appropriate reply. In light of the peculiar facts of the case, the notice issued by the respondent – BBMP could be construed to be the notice under Section 108A (13)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The assessee has been granted time of 30 days from service of notice to respond to the stated notice. It is to be noted that unless the basis of the revised area calculation is shared with the petitioner, furnishing of reply would indeed be a futile exercise as rightly contended by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent – BBMP states that the revised area calculation is on the basis of the survey. It is made clear that the respondent – BBMP is required to furnish the basis of the revised area calculation, which is referred to in their notices at Annexures – A and B.
6. In the light of the peculiar facts of the present case, the period of 30 days under Section 108A (13) (c) of the Act provided for the tax payer to respond would be deemed to commence from the date on which the basis of the revised tax demand as adverted to in Annexures – B and F is furnished to the petitioner. It is made clear that the Commissioner while proceeding to pass orders under Clause (e), shall consider all objections of the petitioner as may be raised before the Commissioner including contentions as made out in the present petition. The counsel for the petitioner points out that they have not obstructed at any point of time the entry of the officials of the respondent – BBMP for inspection or survey and in light of such submission the respondent to take note of the same. The respondent – BBMP is at liberty to carry out fresh inspection if required and take note of the above observations while proceeding further All contentions of the petitioner are kept open and the petition is disposed of in the light of the observations made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS