Sri. P. Y. Vasudeva vs. State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder M/s Sai Raghavendra Constructions and Developers, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated June 30, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice was issued by Respondent No. 4. The petitioners sought to quash the demand notice concerning specific amounts levied towards scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and construction workers welfare cess. The writ petition raises issues identical to those previously considered in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka disposed of the writ petition by following its order dated August 4, 2021, passed in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases, due to the identical nature of the issues raised. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the earlier order were not detailed in this snippet. However, the operative direction was to dispose of the current writ petition in line with the previous judgment. The judgment did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as it was disposed of based on precedent. The specific amounts challenged in the demand notice were scrutiny fee (Rs. 1,83,858/-), license fee (Rs. 36,77,158/-), ground rent and GST (Rs. 21,69,523/-), security deposit (Rs. 18,228/-), and construction workers welfare cess (Rs. 31,000/-).
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), BBMP, dated June 30, 2020, is legally sustainable in so far as it levies charges for scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and construction workers welfare cess. The petitioners argued that the demand notice is illegal and unsustainable. They contended that the amounts demanded are not authorized by law. The specific grounds for this contention were not detailed in the provided judgment snippet, but the challenge implies a lack of statutory basis for the levies. The revenue or State's arguments were not recorded in the provided text. The judgment indicates that the issues are identical to those in a previously decided batch of writ petitions (W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases).
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.10660/2020 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN
SRI P. Y. VASUDEVA AGED 44 YEARS S/O LATE YAGGAPPA.
SRI VASANTH AGED 41 YEARS S/O LATE YAGGAPPA.
M. NARAYANAMURTHY AGED 56 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA.
SRI M.RAMAMURTHY AGED 54 YEARS S/O SRI.MUNIKRISHNAPPA.
SRI MURALI M., AGED 46 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIKRISHNAPPA.
SRI JAYARAM AGED 51 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAGGAPPA.
SRI RAMESH AGED 41 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAGAPPA.
2
SRI RAMAKRISHNA AGED 37 YEARS S/O SRI MUNIYAGGAPPA
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
SRI ABDUL MAJEED @ MAHSIN AGED 61 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL QADER ADAM, R/AT NO.199/200, LAUGHING WATER, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, RAMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 066. 10. SRI ABDUL AZIZ QUADER AGED 54 YEARS S/O LATE ABDUL QADER ADAM, R/AT NO.188, D COSTA SQUARE, WHEELER ROAD EXTN., COX TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 084. REPRSENTED BYTHEIR GPA HOLDER M/S SAI RAGHAVENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS AND
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.