IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.3393 OF 2019 (LB-TAX) Between:
Shri. Varnit Jain S/o. Anurag Jain Aged about 33 years R/at No.24, Cubbon Road Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Petitioner (By Sri Srihari A.V, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 Represented by its Chief Secretary.
2. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Paalike Corporation Circle Bengaluru – 560 002 Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Joint Director Town and Country Planning Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Paalike Bengaluru – 560 002.
4. The Assistant Director Town and Country Planning Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Paalike Bengaluru – 560 002.
5. The Assistant Revenue Officer Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Paalike Jeevanabhimanagara Range Bengaluru – 560 075.
6. The President Carlton Towers Association Carlton Towers, Old Airport Road Kodihalli Bengaluru – 562 119. ... Respondents (By Sri. D.R. Anandeeshwara, HCGP for R1, Sri. B.V. Muralidhar, Advocate for R2 to R5 Notice to R6 is dispensed with V/o dtd 31.07.19) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the demand notice dated 22.01.2018 for an amount of Rs.8,93,408/- in respect of unit No.1/145 of Carlton Towers, Old Airport Road, Kodihalli issued by the respondents vide Annex–M and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The only relief sought by the petitioner is for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the reply given by the petitioner dated 31.07.2018 vide Annexure-N to the demand notice issued by respondent No.5 dated 22.01.2018 at Annexure-M.
3. The respondent No.5-Corporation vide notice dated 22.01.2018 at Annexure-M has demanded Rs.8,93,408/- from the petitioner as Property Tax. Pursuant to that notice dated 22.01.2018 at Annexure-M, the petitioner has given a reply dated 31.07.2018. Since the respondents have not considered the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5-Corporation submits that the Competent Authority will consider the reply given by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has given a reply to respondent No.2 who is not a Competent Authority. If the petitioner gives an additional representation to respondent No.5 with the necessary documents, the same will be considered in accordance with law.
5. Pursuant to the notice dated 22.01.2018 at Annexure-M, the petitioner has submitted a reply vide Annexure-N dated 31.07.2018 and so far, the same is not considered by the respondents. Now that the learned counsel for respondent No.5-Corporation submitted that the petitioner has given a reply to respondent No.2. However, in addition to that if one more representation along with necessary documents be given to respondent No.5, the same will be considered in accordance with law.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to furnish a fresh representation along with the reply dated 31.07.2018 at Annexure-N and relevant documents to respondent No.5 within two weeks from today. Respondent No.5 is directed to consider the same and to pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receiving such representation, which may be filed by the petitioner.
7. All the contentions of the parties are left open.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ssb