Karnataka High Court
Ge India Technology Centre Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6317
WP No. 44589 of 2016
C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016
WP No. 43952 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 44589 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 38112 OF 2016 (LB-TAX)
WRIT PETITION NO. 43952 OF 2016 (LB-TAX)
IN W.P.No. 44589 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT LTD
122, EPIP, WHITEFIELD ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 066,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL COUNSEL,
MR. JOHN T. THALIATH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK HOLLA.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
KIRAN AND:
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 001.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
HOODI SUB-DIVISION,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6317
WP No. 44589 of 2016
C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016
WP No. 43952 of 2016
BENGALURU-560 048.
4. JOINT COMMISSIONER
BBMP, MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S H PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF DECLARATION, DECLARING RULE 4 OF THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE PROPERTY TAX RULES, 2009 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE WORDS "FACILITIES PROVIDED THEREIN" AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,ULTRA VIRS, ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 38112 of 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.23-56P, DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, OUTER RING ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE SERVICES, MANAGER, SOUTH ASIA AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. GUTHRIE BOYD UNDERWOOD JR ALIAS MR. SONNY UNDERWOOD ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. THOMAS VELLAPALLY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER -3- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MARATHHALLI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560037.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S H PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 06/04/2016 PASSED BY THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, IN MISC.APPEAL 72/2010 AND TO ALLOW THE MISC.APPEAL NO. 72/2010 AND ETC.
IN W.P.No. 43952 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:
1. INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.23-56P, DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, OUTER RING ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK , BENGALURU-560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE SERVICES MANAGER, SOUTH ASIA AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. GUTHRIE BOYD UNDERWOOD JR ALIAS MR. SONNY UNDERWOOD ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S S NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDH, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE,BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016
3. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MARATHHALLI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560037.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S H PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. DAW/150/PR/184/16- 17 DATED JULY 12, 2016(ANNEXURE-G) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner in W.P.No.38112/2016 is questioning the order that has been passed in Misc.Appeal.No.72/2010. The said appeal was filed under Section 113 r/w Section 147 and Rule 19 of the Taxation Rules (Schedule III) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976.
2. The principal claim of the petitioner was that, it's property was required to be classified under -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 Category XIV, which attracted a lower property tax by assessing the tax at Rs.4/- per sq.ft. as against the classification which attracted the rate at the tax of Rs.8/- per sq.ft.
3. W.P.No.43952/2016 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP'), in which, the BBMP contends that the claim of the petitioner that its property came under Category XIV i.e., the classification of the property as the liability to pay the tax at the rate of Rs.4/- per sq.ft. was incorrect and the petitioner was required to be classify its property under Category VIII and calculate their tax at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft.
4. W.P.No.44589/2016 is filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration that Rule 4 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "Property Tax Rules") insofar as it relates to the words "facilities provided -6- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 therein" was unconstitutional and also for quashing of corrigendum dated 28.03.2016, whereby Category VI has been modified and the demand notice dated 29.03.2016 has been issued on the basis of the corrigendum.
5. The principal contention sought to be advanced by the petitioners is that, they being Information Technology Companies, they have been considered as an industry by the State Government and the property that is allotted to them is also an industrial area and, therefore, the BBMP cannot classify the properties as a non-residential property, which carries a higher rate of tax liability and demand tax.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to put forth various arguments to contend that the classification determined by the BBMP is absolutely incorrect and the BBMP was required to accept the classification made by the Government and considered the properties of the petitioners as an -7- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 industrial building, which would therefore result in a lower rate of tax.
7. Learned Senior counsel also sought to put forth the contention that certain demands made were clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, the demands were liable to be quashed.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that similar contentions had been raised in W.P.No.56279/2015 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on consideration of the classification which required the properties to be construed as falling within Category XIV was elaborately considered and the right of the BBMP to assess the property tax under Category XIV at the rate of Rs.8/- per Sq. feet was ultimately upheld.
9. It was also stated that a prayer had also been made to strike down Rule 4 of the Property Tax Rules and this Court had also upheld the said Rule and, -8- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 consequently, these writ petitions were also liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP, in respect of the argument regarding limitation, contended that a similar contention was advanced in the aforementioned writ petition and this Court has also negatived a similar contention and, therefore, learned Senior counsel was not justified in putting forth this argument.
11. W.P.No.56279/2015 was filed by a similarly placed entity and they had challenged the demand notices made by the BBMP, whereby the BBMP had applied the tax in respect of the schedule property therein at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.ft.
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on an elaborate consideration of the contentions raised in the said writ petition came to the conclusion that the Unit Area Value assessed by the Commissioner had been -9- NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 arrived at after considering the objections made by the public and, therefore, the classification made under Section 108A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act could not be found fault with.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also considered the question of limitation raised therein and has come to the conclusion that the submissions made regarding limitation would also not apply, since the property owners were aware of the classification and they had misrepresented with the authorities regarding the classification and, in such a case, the question of limitation would not arise.
14. In my view, since the questions arises in this writ petition are directly covered by the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.56279/2015, there is no merit in any of the arguments advanced.
15. It may also be pertinent to state here that the validity of the Rule was also upheld in the Co-
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6317 WP No. 44589 of 2016 C/W WP No. 38112 of 2016 WP No. 43952 of 2016 ordinate Bench and I see no reason to disagree with the said decision.
16. I am of the view that the Co-ordinate Bench has considered the matter in the proper perspective and has correctly come to the conclusion that the BBMP was justified in stating that the properties-in-
question would have to be classified under category XIV, which would result in determining the property tax by construing the Unit Area Value at Rs.8/- per sq.ft.
17. These writ petitions are therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3