Karnataka High Court
K.R.Kanakarathnam Chetty Since Dead By ... vs The Taxation Appeal Committee on 4 April, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.Nos.2794/2013 & 2935-39/2013 (LB-BMP)
Between:
K.R.Kanakarathnam Chetty,
Since Dead by his L.R.s
1. Smt. Yashodhamma
Aged about 88 years,
W/o. Late K.R. Kanakarathnam Chetty.
2. Sri. K. Ramakrishnan
Aged about 55 years,
S/o. Late K.R. Kanakarathnam.
3. Smt. P. Uma Devi
Aged about 74 Years,
W/o. A.R. Prabhakar,
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
R/at No.177/20, III Cross,
New No.8, S.L.B. Byrappa Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore-19.
4. Smt. R. Saraswathi
Aged about 71 years,
W/o. K.R. Rajendran,
R/At " Adarsh ",
Kannoth Lane,
Puthiyara, Calicut,
Kerala-673004.
5. Smt. J. Kasturi
Aged about 68 Years,
W/o. Sri. Janardhanan,
R/At No.35, Satpura,
2
Anushakthi Nagar,
Mumbai-400094
6. Smt. Rajeshwari Gupta
W/o Sri. S. Srinivasa Gupta
Aged about 65 years
R/at No.39/42, New No.57,
Ansari Street, Ram Nagar,
Coimbatore-641009
... Petitioners
(By M/s. Shanmukhappa Kesvy & Co, Advs.)
And:
1. The Taxation Appeal Committee
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, Bangalore
Rep. by its Chairman.
2. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, Bangalore
Rep. by its Commissioner
3. The Assistant Revenue Officer
Shanthi Nagar Range,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Mayohall
Bangalore-01.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Niloufer Akbar, Adv. for
Sri.N.K.Ramesh for R1 to 3)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the
records which ultimately resulted in passing the impugned
order Vide Ann-A and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following :
3
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 17.10.2012 passed in Misc. Appeal No.166/1999.
2. The Appellate Court after having considered the rival contentions has by its order dated 17.10.2012 set aside the order dated 16.07.1999 and the endorsement thereto which had been impugned in the said appeal. Thereafter the Appellate Court has remitted the matter back to the respondents with a direction to dispose of the matter by conducting fresh enquiry, issuing fresh notice to the appellant in order to determine the annual rental value of the schedule premises for the purpose of claiming appropriate tax.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the action of the Appellate Court in remitting the matter would refer to the observations made by the Court below with regard to the opportunity that had been provided to the respondents to produce the documents before the Appellate Court. Specific 4 reference is made to the portions wherein the Court was of the view that despite providing sufficient opportunity, the respondents have not produced any documents to support their claim. Further reference was also made to the contention put forth by the appellant that even when they had sought for information under the Right to Information Act, the documents were not made available. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that when it is evident from the said finding that the respondents do not possess any documents, the appellate Court was not justified in remitting the matter inasmuch as no purpose would be served by remitting the matter. It is his contention that when the appellate Court has arrived at such conclusion that the documents have not been produced and has also observed that adverse inference is to be drawn, such adverse inference should have been drawn to the benefit of the appellant to allow the appeal in its entirety. It is therefore contended that the order is not justified. 5
4. Learned counsel for the respondent while seeking to justify the order would point out that the very manner in which the Court has thereafter indicated in the operative portion of the order would disclose that since the documents are not available, fresh assessment has been directed and in the matter of taxation, appropriate method has to be followed and the tax has to be collected and the petitioner cannot by default avoid payment. Therefore, the appellate Court was justified.
5. In the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the said observations of the Court below with regard to the documents having not been produced as enunciated in para 16 of the said order. Having further perused the operative portion, it would be clear that the appellate Court was of the view that in the absence of the documents being available with the respondents to justify the order dated 16.07.1999 and the endorsement, the endorsement and the order has been set aside. Therefore, the relief to that extent has been granted in favour of the petitioner. The matter has been 6 remitted for the purpose of determining the appropriate tax after fresh proceedings. In the absence of the records to justify its earlier action, in any event, in the matter of taxation, while the appropriate tax is to be assessed, certainly, the appellate Court was justified in remitting the matter to hold the fresh proceedings and determine the appropriate tax where the petitioners would have an opportunity to put forth their contention relating to the determination of ARV and the appropriate tax payable.
6. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE akc/bms