M/S Condor Developers LLP vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Condor Developers LLP, has filed two writ petitions challenging demand notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). In WP No. 51153/2019, the petitioner challenges a government order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, which directed upfront collection of Labour Welfare Cess. The petitioner specifically disputes the demand of Rs. 65,23,000/- towards Construction Workers Welfare Cess. In WP No. 50064/2019, the petitioner challenges a demand notice dated September 23, 2019, for Rs. 1,69,82,995/- towards scrutiny fee and license fee, Rs. 1,51,22,186/- towards ground rent, and Rs. 42,61,854/- towards GST, among other charges. The petitioner is represented by its GPA, M/s MFAR Madhuvvan LLP.

Held

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated August 9, 2021, disposed of these writ petitions by following a previous order passed in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and connected cases decided on August 4, 2021. The judgment does not provide specific findings on the individual issues raised by the petitioner in these petitions. Instead, it indicates that the outcome is based on the resolution of similar issues in a batch of earlier writ petitions. Therefore, the specific reasoning and ratio decidendi for the present petitions are not detailed herein, as they are subsumed within the prior judgment. The operative directions would be those prescribed in the order of August 4, 2021, which are not elaborated in this judgment. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of Labour Welfare Cess, are legally sustainable, particularly concerning the demand of Rs. 65,23,000/- towards Construction Workers Welfare Cess (WP No. 51153/2019)? The petitioner contends that the said demand is arbitrary and without legal basis. 2. Whether the demand notice dated September 23, 2019, for various charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, and GST (WP No. 50064/2019) is valid and legally enforceable? The petitioner disputes the legality and quantum of these demands. The State and BBMP are represented by their respective counsel. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by the respondents, but it is implied they are defending the validity of the impugned orders and demand notices.