Karnataka High Court
M/S Alstom Tandd India Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.31972/2013 (LB - RES)
BETWEEN
M/S ALSTOM T&D INDIA LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 27TH
KILOMETER, BELLARY ROAD,
DODDAJALA POST, BENGALURU - 562 157.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SITE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER
MR.R.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR K., SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
WITH SRI VIVEK YAVAGAL (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
(SECRETARIAT)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2
2. DODDAJALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
A STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYATH
RAJ ACT, 1993, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 157
REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVASA GOWDA.A, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
R2 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.9.2011 VIDE
ANN-L DEMANDING THE PETITIONER TO PAY A SUM OF
RS.17,85,000/- IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TREASURY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTION OF THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE KHATA CERTIFICATE
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the demand notice dated 21.09.2011 issued by the second respondent Gram Panchayat demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,85,000/-. 3
2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition are that:
The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the business of power transmission, distribution and supplies that include transformers, circuit breakers etc., The petitioner was previously known as Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Alstom Instrument' for short). Name of the petitioner was changed to Areva T & D Instrument Transformers India Private Limited with effect from 27.09.2005. The aforesaid Areva T & D Instrument Transformers India Private Limited was later amalgamated to become Areva T & D India Limited by virtue of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi on 14.08.2007 and the orders passed by the High Court of Calcutta on 05.07.2007 in company petition No.95/2007.
3. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property measuring 25 acres and 4.48 guntas comprised in 4 Block No.9 to 20 of Sy.No.80 of Settigere village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The aforesaid property was purchased by the petitioner when the name of the company was Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited. In the light of the earlier purchase, the revenue records reflected the name of the petitioner-Company as Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited.
4. Petitioner made an application to the second respondent for correction of the name in the khata certificate of the schedule property from Alstom Instrument to Areva T & D India Limited by providing all the relevant details for seeking such change of name pursuant to the aforementioned proceedings of the High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Calcutta.
5. To the application submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent replied seeking certain documents to which the petitioner herein submitted their reply on 13.07.2011 indicating that the national highway authorities 5 were in the process of acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner and to make appropriate claims before the authority the change of name was imperative.
6. To this letter of petitioner, the second respondent panchayat directed that the petitioner has to pay the requisite fee for amalgamation of the company, to which, the petitioner replied submitting that the second respondent had mistaken, there was no amalgamation of any company, it was only change of name in view of the land that was standing in the name of the earlier company being replaced with the new company and no amalgamation fee was chargeable as contended in their letter.
7. Notwithstanding the clarification given by the petitioner a notice was issued on 21.09.2011 - Annexure 'L' directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,85,000/- towards fee for change of khata in the light of the books of accounts of Rs.7,14,00,000/- of the company. To this notice, since the change of khata at the time when the 6 demand notice was made was imperative in view of the impending acquisition by the National Highways Authority, petitioner paid the entire amount demanded in the aforesaid notice under protest and has challenged the said notice by the second respondent in the writ petition.
8. Heard Sri.Arun Kumar.K, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Srinivasa Gowda.R., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.
9. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the notice by which the demand is made for payment of Rs.17,85,000/- invoking Section 205 of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act' for short) is unfounded as the said provision does not empower the panchayat to demand the amount that is so done.
10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner has 7 an alternative remedy of appeal before the Executive Officer and the writ petition is not maintainable.
He would further contend that the demand made by the second respondent is justified in law as Section 205 of the said Act empowers the panchayat to raise such a demand since there is amalgamation of two companies.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. The company of the petitioner which was Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited had purchased certain property of 25 acres 4.48 guntas, comprised in Block 9 to 20 of Survey No.80, (having separate Khata Nos.134, 134/1 and 137/1) of Settigere Village, Jala Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore pursuant to two sale deeds dated 4.12.2000 and 02.06.2003. The subsequent event of the company of the petitioner changing its name from Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited to Areva T & D Instrument 8 Transformers India Private Limited, which was in 2005 had to again undergo a change pursuant to the amalgamation and became Areva T & D India Limited as a consequence of orders passed by the Calcutta High Court on 5.7.2007 and the Delhi High Court on 14.08.2007.
13. It is in the aforesaid facts the petitioner made an application before the second respondent under whose jurisdiction was the land petitioner had purchased when the company was in the name and style of Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited. Thus, there was no transfer of immovable properties that took place for the second respondent to charge fees invoking Section 205 of the said Act. Section 205 of the said Act reads as follows:
"205. [Duty on transfer of immovable properties] [(1) The duty on transfers of immovable property shall be levied in the form of a surcharge at the rate of three percent of the duty imposed by the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 on instruments of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange and lease in perpetuity, of immovable property situated within the limits of the area of a Taluk Panchayat:] 9 Provided that no [duty on transfers] is leviable in respect of a mortgage where the amount secured by a mortgage does not exceed two thousand rupees :
Provided further that no [duty on transfers] shall be chargeable in respect of any instrument exempt from stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.] (2) The Government may, by notification, specify the rate of [duty on transfers] leviable under sub-section (1), from time to time.
(3) On the introduction of the [duty on transfers], Section 28 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 shall be read as if it specifically required the particulars to be set forth separately in respect of the property situated within and without the limits of a taluk.
(4) The entire amount collected under sub-section (1) as [duty on transfers] in respect of the lands and other properties situated in the taluk shall be passed on to the Taluk Panchayats in the State in proportion to the population of the taluk.
(5) The Government may make rules for regulating collection of [duty on transfers] and the payment thereof."
14. The afore-extracted statutory provision deals with imposition of duties on transfer of immovable properties. There is no transfer that is sought for and is 10 made in the present petition of an immovable property. The application was clear that the name of the company had to be changed from Alstom Instrument Transformers Private Limited to that of Areva T & D India Limited in the light of the afore narrated events that took place. Hence, the demand that is made by the second respondent of Rs.17,85,000/- on the ground that there is amalgamation of companies is unfounded.
15. Therefore, the demand made by the second respondent for payment of Rs.17,85,000/- is contrary to law. Since the petitioner has paid the amount that was demanded in the notice under protest, the same will have to be refunded as the second respondent was not justified in raising such a demand invoking Section 205 of the said Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.11
(ii) The impugned demand notice of the second respondent dated 21.09.2011 vide Annexure-L is quashed.
(iii) The amount of Rs.17,85,000/- paid by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ