Sri.Sulaiman Shareeff vs. State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioner, represented by their GPA holder, M/s Platina Venture, challenged a demand notice dated October 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (South), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included amounts for ground rent, GST at 18% on ground rent, license fee, and scrutiny fee. The petitioner sought to quash these specific demands. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the issues raised in this petition were identical to those in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which had been disposed of by an order dated August 4, 2021.
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by following its previous order in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, decided on August 4, 2021. The specific findings and reasoning from that prior order, which would address the sustainability of the GST demand on ground rent, as well as the demands for license fee and scrutiny fee, are not detailed in this judgment. However, the operative direction was to dispose of the present petition in light of the identical issues decided previously. The judgment does not explicitly state whether any specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 18% on the ground rent is legally sustainable, considering the nature of the ground rent and the applicability of GST provisions. 2. Whether the demand for license fee and scrutiny fee is legally sustainable. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the demand for GST on ground rent was unsustainable. While not explicitly detailed in this judgment, it is implied that the petitioner argued against the levy of GST on ground rent, likely based on its classification or the nature of the transaction. The petitioner also challenged the demand for license fee and scrutiny fee. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the State or the BBMP regarding the GST demand or the license/scrutiny fees. However, their representation through counsel indicates their opposition to the petitioner's claims.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, beyond the general reference to GST.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.12375/2020 (LB- BMP)
BETWEEN
SRI SULAIMAN SHAREEFF AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM SHERIFF R/AT NO. 1, 5TH B CROSS HUTCHINS ROAD ST. THOMAS TOWN BANGALURU – 560 084. PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER M/S PLATINA VENTURE A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE A NO.14/1 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD K.H.M. BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032. BY ITS PARTNER SMT. TAHASEEN ARA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
2 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR BUILDING LICENSE CELL (SOUTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI V.SREEN
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.