IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9235 OF 2018 (LB-TAX)

BETWEEN:

M/S MOHAN & CO A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 48, KASTURBA ROAD, WARD NO 76/117, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR RANJITH MAL CHORDIA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MUJASSIM .,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, BBMP, N R SQUARE Digitally signed BENGALURU- 560002 by SHWETHA RAGHAVEND RA Location: HIGH

2. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER COURT OF KARNATAKA BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE SHANTHINAGAR SUB DIVISION

12^TH FLOOR, P U B BUILDING, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICES DATED 14.8.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B TO THE W.P AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

"(a) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notices dated 14.08.2017 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A & B to the Writ Petition:

(b) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand show cause notices dated 08.01.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C & D to the Writ Petition;

(c) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand show cause notices dated 16.01.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-E & F to the Writ Petition;

(d) issue a writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 17.02.2018 issued by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G to the Writ Petition;

(e) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to calculate the exact property tax keeping in view the objections filed by the Petitioner and to grant the refund of the excess property paid or adjust excess property tax towards the future taxes:

(f) grant such other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The Petitioner is challenging a notice cum order dated

14.08.2017 issued under Sub Section 12 of Section 108A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the KMC Act, 1976').

3. The submission of Sri.Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that ingredients of Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act are not attracted. Inasmuch as, there was no notice which had been issued to the Petitioner to inspect the premises nor was there any refusal on the part of the Petitioner requiring the respondents to pass an order under Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act. He further submits by relying on Sub-Section 14 of Section 108A of the KMC Act, that an assessment or reassessment shall not be made after three(3) years of filing of the tax return. Therefore, he submits that the impugned notice is required to be quashed.

4. Sri. S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the notice has been issued after a random scrutiny and it is the ingredients of Sub-Section 13 of Section 108A of the KMC Act, which is required to be considered and not the ingredients of Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act. His submission is that the tax returns which had been filed by the Petitioner have been taken up for random scrutiny, the authorised officer was of the belief that an incorrect assessment had been made and as such, notice has been issued. In that regard, he submits that there was no requirement to issue notice to inspect the premises, Sub-Section 12 of Section 108A of the KMC Act.

5. Heard Sri.Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. S.H.Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether, when a random scrutiny