M/S Adithya Developers vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Adithya Developers, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated August 6, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Mahadevapura), Respondent No. 4. The demand notice pertains to various charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and construction workers welfare cess. The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice in its entirety. The writ petition raises issues identical to those previously considered by the Court in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.

Held

The Court noted that the present writ petition raises identical issues to those that were considered and decided in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. Consequently, the Court disposed of the present writ petition by following the order passed in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases, which was decided on August 4, 2021. The operative part of the judgment indicates that the writ petition itself has been disposed of, and as a result, an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1/2020) filed in the petition also stands disposed of as it no longer survives. The specific findings on each component of the demand notice, as per the previous judgment, are not detailed in this order, but the overall disposal implies that the principles laid down in the earlier judgment have been applied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Mahadevapura) 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 against the petitioner. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand notice issued by Respondent No. 4 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought to quash the entire demand notice, including the amounts demanded towards scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and construction workers welfare cess. The petitioner contended that the issues raised in this petition are identical to those decided in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's decision indicates that the respondents are the State of Karnataka and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its officials.