O R D E R

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 24.05.2021 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.26/2015 by which, appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 108A(5) read with Section 113(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short “1976 Act”) and Rule 7-B(19) of 1976 Act and Schedule-III of Taxation Rules is rejected and petitioner has further challenged notices issued under Section 108A(3) and (12) of 1976 Act wherein the respondent-BBMP demanded property tax from the petitioner.

Facts of the case:

2. The petitioner, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short “1956 Act”) claims that it is the owner of land and building bearing property No.8, Khatha No.321, Rockline Mall, NH-4, Jalahalli Cross, Chokkasandra, Bengaluru. It is stated that on obtaining sanction of commercial building plan, the petitioner has put up commercial complex and it is put to use with effect from October, 2011. The petitioner is said to have paid the property tax from 2012-13 onwards under Self Assessment Scheme (SAS) since the building is put to use from the said year in its entirety. The SAS was based on the usage and occupancy of the building. Notices dated 19.11.2014 and dated 20.02.2015 under Section 108A (3) and (12) of 1976 Act were said to have been served on the petitioner during February 2015 alleging short/under-assessment of property tax for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15 and demanded differential tax and penalty amounting to Rs.2,63,74,254/- along with 2% interest per month, calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount within thirty days. The petitioner replied on 01.03.2015 (Annexure-E) disputing the measurement and further stated that if proper measurement and assessment is made, the petitioner would pay the same. Thereafter, one more notice was issued by respondent-BBMP dated 24.04.2015 (Annexure-F) directing the petitioner to pay the tax amount within seven days. Again, the petitioner replied in terms of Annexure-G disputing the measurement of the building. Thereafter, one more final notice dated 04.06.2015 was issued directing the petitioner to pay the differential property tax amount. The notice stated that, measurement of the building as measured by the respondent-BBMP is 1,22,743 Sq.Ft., whereas the petitioner had measured for calculation of tax purpose at 48,500 Sq. Ft. On difference of 74,243 Sq.Ft., the respondent-BBMP demanded differential tax.

3. Challenging the notices issued by the respondent-BBMP under Section 108A(3) and (12) of

1976 Act and the subsequent demand notices, the petitioner approached the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Miscellaneous Appeal No.26/2015 under Section 108A(5) of 1976 Act., mainly contending that the respondents have not followed the procedure in assessing the tax, particularly in classifying and categorizing the property for assessing the tax. The Trial Court under impugned order dated 24.05.2021 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

4. This Court, by interim order dated

13.08.2021 granted stay of the impugned order dated 24.05.2021 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.26/2015 subject to petitioner depositing Rs.40,00,000/-. The petitioner is said to have deposited the said amount. On the submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BBMP that a joint survey/inspection of the property and its assessment would be done afresh, this Court by order dated 23.10.2021 directed the BBMP to conduct survey/inspection. As directed the BBMP conducted fresh inspection and filed its report along with affidavit dated 03.12.2021. The report indicated the built up area of the petitioner building at 1,28,431 sq. ft. During the course of hearing on 08.02.2023, learned senior counsel Sri.Shyamsundar submitted that the survey conducted by the respondent-BBMP on 15.11.2021 was without the presence of the petitioner or his representa