S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J
1. The petitioner has called into question the validity of the show cause notice dated 04.03.2023 at Annexure-'D' and has sought to set aside the orders at Annexures-'F1 to 'F6', which are stated to have been passed pursuant to the said show cause notice, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay the property tax dues forthwith alongwith interest and penalty.
2. The petitioner submits that the respondents have sealed the premises of the petitioner and affixed the lock and he draws attention to the interim prayer made in that regard. The petitioner further submits that he has been a regular payer of property tax and it is only after the respondent sought to reopen the self-assessment and re-computation that certain demands have been raised, otherwise, the petitioner has not committed any default in payment of property tax or self-assessment returns. It is pointed out that the reason for fresh demand appears to be re-computation as is evident from Annexure-'D' and that the other impugned orders as well. It is pointed out that the re-computation is on the basis that the property would fall within Category-VI.
3. It is also submitted that the action of demanding tax for the period beyond five years is impermissible, in light of Section 144(16) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short, 'BBMP Act').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the question of sealing the premises for default would not arise, more so, where such sealing is done pursuant to the oral order, which is not communicated to the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BBMP submits that the sealing of premises is in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in case of default. He refers to the power conferred under Section 178 of the BBMP Act as a counter to the argument of the petitioner by placing reliance on Section 144(16) of the BBMP Act, 2020.
6. Heard both sides.
7. It must be noticed that insofar as the proceedings re-opening the self-assessment declaration, the Authority has reopened the self-assessment proceedings and has arrived at its own computation as is evident from Annexure-'D'. The show cause notice has raised a demand consequent to such re-computation. There is a substantive remedy of redressal by way of appeal under Section 179 of the BBMP Act, 2020 against the impugned orders at Annexurse-'F1' to 'F6'.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, if the order of sealing of premises is set aside and protection be granted, he would take recourse to the substantive remedy to challenge the impugned orders at Annexures-'F1' to 'F6.'
9. It must be noticed that the assertion of petitioner that there is no communication of order of sealing of the premises requires acceptance, as there is no material to show that the petitioner has been communicated of the sealing of the premises.
10. Without entering into the legality of the action of sealing of the premises, in light of the petitioner's fair submission that he would pay 50 per cent of the disputed tax amount as re-computed, the petitioner may be provided with some protection. As the petitioner is being relegated to the availing of substantive remedy of appeal against the impugned orders at Annexures-'F1' to 'F6', in effect, the demand which is made pursuant to such order would be subject to the eventual orders to be passed in an appeal upon the petitioner filing an appeal.
11. In light of the same, the question of continuing the sealing of premises would not arise. The petitioner to make deposit of 50 per cent of the disputed demand of tax within a period of four weeks from today.
12. If the petitioner were to file an appeal in terms of Section 179 of the BBMP Act, 2020, he would be required to make deposit in terms of Section 148(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020, which would require deposit of 50 per cent of the demand.
It is to be noticed that the demand herein that has been raised relates to the disputed tax and penalty alongwith interest. Though the petitioner has undertaken to deposit 50 per cent of the disputed tax, however, the amount as quantified and paid by the petitioner ought to be taken note of. Insofar as the deposit required under Section 148(3) of the BBMP Act, 2020 if the amount that is remitted with the respondent being 50 per cent of the disputed tax would equal 50 percent of the amount under Section 148(3) or exceed the same, then, the same to be taken note of. The petitioner cannot be insisted for making any further deposit, as the deposit as per the order of this Court would be in consonance with Section 144 of the BBMP Act, 2020.
13. Needless to state that the amount remitted with the respondent pursuant to the order of this Court is found to be less than the statutory deposit under Section 148(3) of the BBMP Act, the petitioner to make good such deposit. All contentions are kept open.
14. Needless to state that the lock affixed to the premises is to be opened by tomorrow (05.01.2024).
Subject to be above observations and directions, the Petition is disposed off.
