Mohammed Azar Pasha vs. State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioner, Mr. Mohammed Azar Pasha, represented by his GPA M/s. ATZ Properties, has filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated March 1, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning-North) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand includes Rs. 6,92,929/- towards ground rent, Rs. 1,24,727/- towards GST, Rs. 4,61,953/- towards license fee, and Rs. 23,098/- towards scrutiny fee. The petitioner is seeking to quash this demand notice. The petition raises issues identical to those previously considered in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases.
Held
The Court noted that the present writ petition raises issues identical to those that were considered in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases. These previous petitions were disposed of by an order dated August 4, 2021. Consequently, the Court decided to dispose of the current writ petition by following the order passed in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the August 4, 2021 order are not detailed in this judgment. However, the operative direction is to dispose of the present petition in line with the previous decision. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated March 1, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning-North) of BBMP, is legally sustainable in so far as it demands Rs. 6,92,929/- towards ground rent, Rs. 1,24,727/- towards GST, Rs. 4,61,953/- towards license fee, and Rs. 23,098/- towards scrutiny fee. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the demand notice, particularly the amounts demanded for ground rent, GST, license fee, and scrutiny fee. The specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in the provided text, but the petition seeks to quash these specific demands. Respondents' contention: The respondents, the State of Karnataka and the BBMP, are represented by their respective counsel. The judgment indicates that the issues are identical to those in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases). Therefore, it can be inferred that the respondents would likely defend the demand notice based on the relevant provisions of law and any prior orders or understandings concerning these charges.
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.7005/2021 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
MR. MOHAMMED AZAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. N. ABDUL RAWOOF R/O. THINDLU VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA M/S. ATZ PROPERTIES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN PROPRIETOR -SRI ATHIQUE AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.12, PLAIN STREET INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA 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 (TOWN PLANNING- NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI V.SREENIDHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETI
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.