Sattva Developers PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioner, Sattva Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated March 5, 2021, issued by the Joint Director of Town Planning (South) (Respondent No. 3). The demand notice required the petitioner to deposit ground rent along with 18% GST, amounting to Rs. 1,09,65,371. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its officials are the respondents. The petitioner argued that a previous decision by the High Court in W.P.No.4601/2020 had declared the by-laws under which such charges were levied as ultra vires and unenforceable. The petitioner sought disposal of the current writ petition in line with the earlier judgment.
Held
The Court held that in view of the reported decision in W.P.No.4601/2020, which declared the by-laws under which Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, and Security Deposit were levied as ultra vires and consequently unenforceable, the present writ petition should be disposed of in terms of that order. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated March 5, 2021, was quashed and set aside. The respondent-BBMP was directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders passed by the Court on March 18, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that any demand based on by-laws previously declared ultra vires and unenforceable by the same High Court is invalid and must be quashed, with consequential relief for any amounts paid under such invalid demands.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated March 5, 2021, issued by the Joint Director of Town Planning (South) for ground rent along with 18% GST is liable to be quashed, considering the prior judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4601/2020? The petitioner contended that the by-laws under which the ground rent, license fee, building license fee, scrutiny fee, and security deposit were levied were declared ultra vires and unenforceable by this Court in W.P.No.4601/2020, dated August 4, 2021. Therefore, the demand notice based on these unenforceable by-laws should be quashed. The petitioner relied on the aforementioned judgment. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against this contention in the provided judgment excerpt.
Sections Cited
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5499 OF 2021 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
SATTVA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, NO.3, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 042. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. ASHWIN SANCHETI, S/O. MANOHARCHAND SANCHETI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 - MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), N.R. SQUARE, HEAD OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX BUILDING, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE – 560 002. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.