M/S United Developers vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s United Developers, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated May 8, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice, issued by respondent No. 4, sought payment of Rs. 1,62,091.31 towards scrutiny fee, Rs. 32,41,826.10 towards license fee, Rs. 19,12,677.40 towards ground rent and GST, Rs. 36,02,029/- towards security deposit, and Rs. 55,35,000/- towards Construction Workers Welfare Cess. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice. The present writ petition raises the same issues as those considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.

Held

The Court noted that the present writ petition raises identical issues to those considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which were disposed of by an order dated August 4, 2021. Consequently, following the precedent set in the earlier batch of petitions, this writ petition was also disposed of in the same manner. The specific findings or reasoning for the disposal of W.P.No.4601/2020 are not detailed in this judgment. The operative directions would have been those issued in the earlier disposed batch. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on prior adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated May 8, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), BBMP, is legally sustainable in its entirety, particularly concerning the amounts demanded for scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and Construction Workers Welfare Cess. The petitioner argued that the demand notice is unsustainable and sought its quashing. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's specific legal arguments or the provisions they relied upon. The respondents, the State of Karnataka (represented by the Secretary, Urban Development Department and Department of Labour) and the BBMP (represented by its Commissioner and Joint Director, Building License Cell), were represented by their respective counsel. The judgment indicates that the issues in this writ petition are identical to those in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which were disposed of by a prior order.