Sri.G.Manjunath vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder M/s Vistaspaces Assets LLP, challenged a demand notice dated July 17, 2020, issued by the Joint Director (Building License Cell - North) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included a sum of Rs. 3,47,90,498/- towards ground rent, and GST at 18% on ground rent (Rs. 62,62,290/-), license fee (Rs. 1,26,51,090/-), and scrutiny fee (Rs. 6,32,555/-). The petitioners also sought to declare Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires. The present writ petition raises identical issues to those in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which were disposed of by a previous order dated August 4, 2021.

Held

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated August 9, 2021, disposed of the writ petition by following its previous order dated August 4, 2021, which dealt with W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. The judgment explicitly states that the present petition calls into question the very same issues that were addressed in the earlier batch of petitions. Therefore, the findings and directions in the August 4, 2021 order would apply mutatis mutandis to this case. The specific reasoning and findings on the constitutionality of Bye-law No. 3.9 and the legality of the GST demand are not detailed in this specific order but are implicitly adopted from the earlier judgment. The operative directions would be consistent with the relief granted in the earlier disposed cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires, as contended by the petitioners. 2. Whether the demand for Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 18% on ground rent, license fee, and scrutiny fee, as included in the demand notice dated July 17, 2020, is legally sustainable. The petitioners argued that Bye-law No. 3.9 is unconstitutional and arbitrary. They also contended that the demand for GST on the aforementioned charges is unsustainable. The respondents, State of Karnataka and BBMP, did not present specific arguments on these points in the provided text, as the judgment indicates it follows a previous order dealing with identical issues. The judgment states that the present writ petition raises the same issues as W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.