K K Chandrashekar Raju vs. The State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioners, K.K. Chandrashekar Raju and Jayaramu Raju, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated February 12, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director (Town Planning) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included charges for scrutiny fee, ground rent, GST on license fee, betterment fee scrutiny deposit, and construction workers welfare cess. The petitioners sought to quash these demands. The writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka raised issues identical to those previously considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka, by an order dated August 23, 2021, disposed of the writ petition. The Court noted that the issues raised in this petition were identical to those previously considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which were disposed of by an order dated August 4, 2021. Consequently, this writ petition was also disposed of by following the order passed in the earlier batch of petitions. The specific findings or reasoning from the August 4, 2021 order, which form the basis for disposing of this petition, are not detailed within this judgment. Therefore, the operative directions and the specific relief granted are implicitly those granted in the prior order, which are not elaborated here. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 12.02.2021, issued by the Assistant Director (Town Planning) (R4), is legally sustainable in so far as it demands Rs. 15,893/- towards scrutiny fee, Rs. 2,94,713.50 towards ground rent, Rs. 3,17,872/- towards GST on license fee, Rs. 1,19,250/- towards betterment fee scrutiny deposit, and Rs. 1,83,000/- towards construction workers welfare cess. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioners sought to quash the aforementioned demands made in the notice. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the legality of these demands. However, the matter was disposed of following a previous order in identical cases.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.8038/2021 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
K.K. CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
JAYARAMU RAJU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE S/O K.V. KALAHASTRI RAJU,
R/A NO. 212, 6TH CROSS,
R.R. TEMPLE ROAD,
DEVASANDRA K.R. PURAM,
BANGALORE 36. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RADHAKRISHNA.A., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARATMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OFLABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001. 3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING (MAHADEVAPURA)), WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, RHB COLONY, BANGALORE 560048. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NITHYANANDA. K.R., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI V.SREENIDHI & SMT. SINCHANA.M.R., ADV. FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILE
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.