Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 603 (KAR)

Raja Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

2000-08-30

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—This is a peculiar writ petition containing multi prayers. More over, the xerox copies of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are much more than the writ petition and the annexures, i.e., they are about three fold more of the writ petition papers. The prayers sought for and the decisions relied upon themselves will speak to volumes about the merit of this writ petition. 2. The Petitioner, which is a Partnership firm, is the owner of premises bearing No. 51 situate at Sajjan Rao Road, Visveswarapuram, Bangalore - 560 004. Revision of property tax was effected in respect of the said premises under Annexure-A. Aggrieved by the same the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The Taxation Appeal Committee of the Corporation confirmed the revision of property tax under Annexure-B. The Petitioner filed second appeal to the District Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105 of 1998. By the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 17.6.2000 the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable as the Petitioner did not deposit the tax amount as required under Rule 20(a) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). By the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 17.6.2000 the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable as the Petitioner did not deposit the tax amount as required under Rule 20(a) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The Petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following prayers: (i) declare that the Respondent-Corporation of the City of Bangalore has no 'Authority of Law' to assess, levy and recover the property taxes, cesses etc., under Articles 265 of the Constitution of India without complying with and systematically following the procedures as laid down under Sections 104 to 117 and other relevant provisions of the Corporation Act and the rules framed thereunder, (ii) declare that Section 108 of the Corporations Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional, (iii) direct the first Respondent-Government of Karnataka to frame rules and guidelines for categorizing immovable properties coming under the sway of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore into various classes for purposes of imposition of property taxes exercising powers under Section 421 of the Corporations Act, (iv) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and quash the Order bearing No. Order No. DC(S)GC(AP) 29 of 1994-95, dated 24.4.1997 passed by the second Respondent in the Revision Petition as per Annexure-A and the Order dated 26.11.1998 passed in TAC 141 of 1997-98 passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee as per Annexure-B. (v) to declare ultra-vires that portion of Section 20(a) of Taxation Rules contained in Chapter III of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 prescribing that the Rate payer, within 30 days from the date of the order passed by the Taxation Appeals Committee to deposit the entire tax amount demanded before getting his/her appeal in the District Court decided, (vi) to direct the first Respondent-State of Karnataka to frame Rules and give guidelines to the 2nd Respondent-Corporation of Bangalore City to fix the Rateable Value on the gross Annual Rateable Value of buildings and vacant lands situate in the territorial jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, (vii) to direct the 2nd Respondent to refund to the Petitioner all the property taxes so far recovered from the Petitioner without the Authority of law. The various other facts narrated in the writ petition and the contentions raised as also the various decisions relied upon in support of the case of the Petitioner need not be referred to for the simple reason that the Petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 3. The first prayer that the Corporation has no authority to assess and recover property tax without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 104 to 117 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is misconceived. The Petitioner can, at best seek a direction to the Corporation to comply with the aforesaid provisions if the same are not followed but it cannot seek a declaration that Corporation has no authority. Hence, the first prayer cannot be granted. 4. The second prayer sought to declare Section 108 of the Act as ultra-vires and unconstitutional, is conflicting with the first prayer. A reading of the first prayer makes it clear that the Petitioner wants to follow the procedure contemplated in Section 104 of the Act. Section 104 stipulates classification of persons or property for the purpose of fixation of property tax. That is what precisely Section 108 of the Act prescribes. When Petitioner wants the Corporation to follow Section 104, it cannot seek to declare Section 108 as ultra-vires or unconstitutional because Section 108 of the Act stipulates what is contemplated in Section 104 of the Act. Since the prayer is in conflict with the first prayer, the same cannot be granted. 5. The third prayer is to direct the Government of Karnataka to frame rule and guidelines for categorizing the immovable properties in Bangalore for the purpose of imposition of property taxes in exercise of power under Section 421 of the Act. In fact, the Government has already framed such a rule called The Karnataka Municipal Corporation (City of Bangalore) Rules, 1984 in exercise of power under Section 421 of the Act. In addition to that, the guidelines are already covered under Section 108 of the Act. In addition to that, since the Corporation has framed Building bye-laws, this prayer has become unnecessary. The Building Bye-laws prescribes the category of area, buildings and other matters. 6. The fourth prayer is to quash the order at Annexures-A and B by which revision of property tax was made and confirmed. In addition to that, since the Corporation has framed Building bye-laws, this prayer has become unnecessary. The Building Bye-laws prescribes the category of area, buildings and other matters. 6. The fourth prayer is to quash the order at Annexures-A and B by which revision of property tax was made and confirmed. The main ground of attack is that the revision is excessive. The said orders have been passed after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and after hearing the Petitioner. The fact that the premises consists of six floors apart from Cellar and Ground Floors and that the premises is being let-out for residential purposes has been taken note of. The concessions to be given have already been given in accordance with law. Hence, the impugned orders need not be interfered with. Hence, the prayer cannot be granted. 7. The fifth prayer to declare Rule 20(a) of the Taxation Rules in so far as the prescribing deposit of entire tax amount as a condition precedent for filing appeal, cannot be granted. The said condition is imposed in order to see that a party shall not go on litigating the matter before one or the other forum without paying the property tax. If any excess tax is collected, the same would be adjusted in future taxes depending upon the decision in the appeal. Reference is made in the impugned order at Annexure-F to the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in Shyam Kishore and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, AIR 1992 SC 2279 in this regard. In the order at Annexure-F it is observed that the Petitioner due in a sum of Rs. 26,71,594/-. When Petitioner alone is due in such a large sum towards property tax, the quantum of such arrears from others in unimaginable. The Corporation cannot provide better amenities and service if such huge amounts are not paid. In order to avoid such a situation the condition is imposed in Rule 20(a) of the Taxation Rules. The same is neither ultra-vires nor arbitrary or unreasonable. The prayer in this regard cannot be granted. 8. The sixth prayer sought for is to direct the State of Karnataka to frame Rules and to give guidelines to the Corporation to fix the rateable value of the properties. The same is neither ultra-vires nor arbitrary or unreasonable. The prayer in this regard cannot be granted. 8. The sixth prayer sought for is to direct the State of Karnataka to frame Rules and to give guidelines to the Corporation to fix the rateable value of the properties. In view of Section 109 of the Act providing for method of fixation of rateable value of the properties and the Rules are framed under Section 147 of the Act, under Schedule III, Part II of the Act, an elaborate procedure is laid down for determining the rateable value of the property either for fixing or revising the property tax. Therefore this prayer also cannot be granted. 9. The eighth prayer to direct the Corporation to refund all the property taxes collected from the Petitioner so far, is totally misconceived. As long as the Petitioner is the owner of the property and enjoys the amenities and services rendered by the Corporation, it cannot ask for such a prayer. The Petitioner intends to enjoy the property rights without payment of property tax, then the corporation cannot discharge its statutory duties in providing various Civic Amenities to the residents of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, therefore such a prayer cannot be granted, as the same has been done in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the relevant rules referred to above. If this prayer is granted the object and purpose for which the Act and Rules were framed would be defeated and virtually the Corporation cannot effectively function and achieve the object and intentment of the Act. Such a direction could have been neither sought for nor it can be granted by this Court. 10. Petition is misconceived. None of the grounds and contentions are tenable. For the reasons stated supra, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are applicable to the case on hand. 11. Writ Petition is dismissed.