Mrinalini D Souza vs. State Of Karnataka
Facts
The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder Nestled Haven Developers LLP, are challenging a demand notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice seeks payment of Rs. 2,15,762.00 towards scrutiny fee, Rs. 42,50,382.00 towards license fee, Rs. 25,07,725.00 towards ground rent and GST, Rs. 28,89,176.00 towards security deposit, and Rs. 43,39,000.00 towards construction workers welfare cess. The petitioners are seeking to quash these demands. The present writ petition raises identical issues to those previously considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.
Held
The Court noted that the present writ petition raises identical issues to those previously 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 light of the order passed on August 4, 2021. The Court did not delve into the specific merits of each component of the demand notice in this judgment, as it was disposed of based on the prior adjudication of identical issues. The interim application (I.A.No.1/2020) was also disposed of as it did not survive.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Building License Cell (North), BBMP, is legally sustainable in its entirety, particularly concerning the demands for scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, security deposit, and construction workers welfare cess? (Question of law and fact, concerning the powers and jurisdiction of the authority under relevant municipal laws and GST provisions). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argue that the demand notice is unsustainable and seek its quashing. They rely on the fact that the present petition raises identical issues to those decided in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. Respondent's contention: The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and the BBMP, have not explicitly recorded arguments in this judgment. However, their participation implies a defense of the demand notice.
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.10962/2020 (LB- BMP)
BETWEEN
MRINALINI D’ SOUZA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS W/O LATE MERVYN F. D’ SOUZA BRUNTON ROAD CROSS BENGALORE-560025
P. SANJAY MUDARTHA AGED 47 YEARS S/O. LATE MERVYN F. D’SOUZA BRUNTON ROAD CROSS, BENGALORE-560025
SUNANYA MUDARTHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE MERVYN F. D’ SOUZA BRUNTON ROAD CROSS, BENGALORE-560025
RITA ANNE COELHO AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS W/O LATE HENRY COELHO R/AT NO.17, ST. LEO ROAD BANDRA. MUMBAI-400001
2
MELLENER ANNE COELHO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O LATE HENRY COELHO R/AT NO.714A, 8TH MAIN, B BLOCK VINAYAKANAGAR BENGALURU - 560017
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/S. NESTLED HAVEN DEVELOPERS LLP NO.548/35, 3RD FLOOR, 50’ ROAD HANUMANTH NAGAR BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU -560050 BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER / AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI RISHAD GEV KHERGAMWALA ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
STATE
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.