Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) V7-._VioiatiovnfdeeyiatéiéoniZ"as "at 6.0(i) above may be 'reg__utiia.vriz'edaoiniyiattier sanctioning the modified plan M ' * _record»in_Vg"t'her'eon the violations / deviations and V it,_t_d.gttte.r the'V|'e"v'y'ot tee prescribed by the Corporation _ froth time to time."

it the iearned eounsei submits that the ~ ~.«.fi,"f.authorities3 below have committed an error in law in tht.,de.rs't--anding that the payment, was in the nature of a penalty. T he further submission is that, the ruling of this Court rendered in the case of Mamatha Enterprises is not attracted to the present case for the reason that in the ease of Mamatha Enterprises, on facts it was found builder / assessee had put up 8"' floor of the _ obtaining any approved plan at all. VWhereas"'inj" . case the assessee had put up eonstriicltiofi approved plan from the compounding fee was paid deviations within the permissible lithe sanctioned plan. In the light enahling' regularising such deviations""had:'paid?-ipreg1;ilarisat'i'o1'1 fee, applying the said ruling to the was not called for and therefore the authori'Vties_ below have committed an error in law. in '-lhfjlciingvi-that riilirig covers this case also. H hhaize bestowed our .consideration to the supbmislsions tirade at the Bar and perused the orders of the atlthority, first and second appellate authority.

8. The appeal is sought for adrnissiori on the following questions of lawn

i) Whether in law, the Tribunal was upholding the disaliowance of _pay4riteri:t.i.:'ot it Fts.4,40,500/- for reguiarizatlAon"ef._the which were within the permi's.eai3ire"limits,_cheil,eahgi'it[ii«E71 as penalty and thusip'no.i liable: to 3a_'lvt«o.we.d U/s.37(t)oi the Act? ll

ii) Whether in law"L.nder-- the payment made for reguvl'aré--2:ati.oril-. the..lcl:e\riation5 in the plan vviltlhinlh'the;?perritiss"i'b|:erriarg.i§n could be held to mptli*:pOSe of disaiiowance .. elspecialiy when the Appellant had sold the properties in regularized plan, the profit _ _ froth v_irhi.r:,h-.hac_.i been offered for taxation? it AV the otférall examination of the facts and legal " that the authorities beiow have not V V' comr11i«t.t.eclv'any* error in law, warranting a correction by this ?",i"Co'urti.p in "ei$<ercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 4l_"2f<3€;l_P£of'lthe Act. We say so, for the reason that the so called it ':l_4:1"egt1:larisatio1'1 fee in terms of Bye~law 6.0 of the .Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Byelaws is a provision made for regularising the deviations/violations as enabled U/s.483(b} of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. 1976 which reads as under: .