Sri.Pramod Bhandari vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated September 20, 2021, disposed of the present writ petition. The Court noted that the issues raised in this petition were identical to those that had been previously considered and decided in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. Consequently, the Court followed its earlier order dated August 4, 2021, which disposed of the aforementioned batch of petitions. The specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi from the August 4, 2021 order are not detailed in this judgment. Therefore, the operative directions and the specific relief granted are not elaborated upon here, other than the fact that the petition was disposed of in line with the previous ruling. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Sri. Pramod Bhandari and Sri. Ranjeeth K.S., have filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated August 21, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (West), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice pertains to the levy and collection of various fees and charges, including scrutiny fee, ground rent (with CGST and SGST), licence fee, security deposit, lake rejuvenation fee, service charges on labour cess, and labour cess itself. The petitioners are seeking to quash this demand notice. The present writ petition raises identical issues to those previously considered in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated 21.08.2021, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (West), BBMP, is legally sustainable in its entirety, particularly concerning the levy of scrutiny fee, ground rent (including CGST and SGST), licence fee, security deposit, lake rejuvenation fee, service charges on labour cess, and labour cess, as per the provisions of the relevant municipal laws and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners are challenging the demand notice on grounds that are identical to those raised in W.P.No.4601/2020 and connected cases. They seek to quash the impugned demand notice in its entirety, specifically the components related to various fees and charges, including those where GST is applied. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State of Karnataka or the BBMP in this particular writ petition. However, it notes that the matter is being disposed of in light of a previous order concerning identical issues.