BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/... · in the high court of karnataka, bengaluru dated this the 15th day of november 2016

®

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

WRIT PETITION No.22770/2016

c/w

WRIT PETITION Nos. 1140/2016, 1141/2016, 3657/2016

and

WRIT PETITION Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-225/2016

(LB-TAX)

IN WP No.22770/2016

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED ALPHA-2, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 300. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL

SRI.AKSHAY RAM APTE. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SAJJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ

M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KARIYAPPA ROAD

BANASHANKARI BANGALORE – 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS

2/22

Date of order:15.11.2016 in WP.No.22770/2016 c/w WP Nos.1140/2016, 1141/2016,3657/2016

and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016

Bangalore International Airport Limited Vs

The State of Karnataka and others

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. BANDIKODIGEHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT BANDIKODIGEHALLI

JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 149.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA FOR R-1 SRI. M.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2

SMT.SUMANA BALIGA, ADV. FOR R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.06.2014 ISSUED BY R-3 AT

ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP No.1140/2016

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED

ALPHA-2, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 300.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL SRI.AKSHAY RAM APTE. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SAJJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ

M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF SECRETARY.

3/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



2. ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

K.G.ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD GANDHI NAGAR

BANGALORE – 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. ANNESWARA GRAM PANCHAYAT

ANNESWARA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 129.


RESPONDENTS



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLEs 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 NOT DEMAND PROPERTY TAX FROM THE

PETITIONER TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY

THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT 1993 EXPEDITIOUSLY, WITHIN A PERIOD

OF ONE MONTH OR ANY PERIOD THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.

IN WP No.1141/2016

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED

ALPHA-2, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI,

BANGALORE – 560 300. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL

4/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



SRI.AKSHAY RAM APTE. PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SAJJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD

GANDHI NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. BETTAKOTE GRAM PANCHAYAT BETTAKOTE VILLAGE

DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 129


RESPONDENTS



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 & 3 NOT DEMAND PROPERTY TAX FROM THE PETITIONER TILL

THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE KARNATAKA

5/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT, 1993 EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH OR ANY PERIOD THIS HON’BLE COURT

DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

IN WP No.3657/2016

BETWEEN:

MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B’LORE) PVT.LTD., CARGO TEMINAL 1, PLOT NO.c-04L

KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 300 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR.K.VENKATA REDDY.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ANNESWARA GRAM PANCHAYAT ANNESWARA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 REPRESENTED BY ITS

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

2. THE BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYAT KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA PANCHAYAT

KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009.


6/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SUMANA BALIGA, ADV. FOR R-1

SRI.M.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI.T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA FOR R-4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER

DATED 16.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-A) CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER TO PAY 50% OF THE TAX

DEMANDED BY THE R-1 GRAM PANCHAYATH TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE TAX DEMANDED BY THE R-1 GRAM PANCHAYATH AND ETC.

IN WP Nos.22771/2016 &

25224-25225/2016

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED ALPHA-2, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 300. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL SRI.AKSHAY RAM APTE.

PETITIONER (BY SRI.SAJJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SMT.NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:


DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ M.S.BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

7/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



2. ZILLA PANCHAYATH BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT

KARIYAPPA ROAD BANASHANKARI

BANGALORE – 560 050 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3. DODDAJALA GRAM PANCHAYAT

DODDAJALA, JALA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT – 562 157


RESPONDENTS


SRI.M.SHIVA PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R-3)

THESE WIRT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.06.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014

ISSED BY R-3 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

:ORDER:

1. All these petitions are disposed of by common

order. The facts are taken from Writ Petition

No.22770/2016.

2. Unfortunately, a Public Sector Undertaking like the

Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL), has to

8/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



approach High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India under writ jurisdiction against Zilla Panchayat and

Anneswara Gram Panchayat on the issue of payability of

property tax under the provisions of Karnataka Panchayat

Raj Act, 1993, Section 199 read with Schedule-IV thereto.

3. The occasion to file these writ petitions by BIAL

occurred because, the respondent No.3-Anneswara Gram

Panchayat, served the impugned Demand Notice vide

Annexure-A dated 6.6.2014 demanding property tax in

respect of constructed building and vacant land owned and

possessed by the petitioner-BIAL, in the territorial

jurisdiction of Myalanahalli and Hunachuru villages at the

rate of Rs.3.50 paise per Sq.M. as per the Annual Letting

Value fixed by the State Government under Circular dated

24.5.2003. The demand raised against the petitioner-BIAL

is to the extent of Rs.1,55,35,752/- for the year 2013-

2014 in respect of property belonging to the BIAL, known

as “Kempegowda International Airport”.

9/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



4. The petitioner has assailed the said demand of

property tax on various grounds, inter-alia, that the rate

of tax demanded is far in excess of even the maximum

rate of tax prescribed under Schedule-IV read with 199 of

the Act of 1993, which provides for rate of tax on

buildings to the maximum rate of tax at 10% of Annual

Letting Value per annum, on constructed buildings and

tax on vacant lands, not subject to agricultural

assessment, for every one hundred square meter, one

rupee per annum has been prescribed as the rate.

5. The petitioner- BIAL own and is in possession of

about 4000 Acres of land spread in the territorial

jurisdiction of following four Gram Panchayats and the

built-up area of Airport, lies only in the territorial

jurisdiction of one of them, Anneswara Gram Panchayat.

The details of land area and built-up area as produced

before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is as under:-

10/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



Name of

Gram

Panchayat

Extent of

Land Area Extent of

Built Up Area Extent of

Vacant

Land Bettakote 471 Acres Nil 19,03,949

sq.Meters Anneshwara 2,540, Acres 2,09,972

Sq.Meters 96,84,339

Sq.Meters BK Halli 818 Acres Nil 33,12,527

Sq.Meters Doddajala 162 Acres Nil 6,57,613

Sq.Meters Total 3991 Acres

6. When the notices were issued by this Court calling

upon the respondents to explain the situation along with

the responsible Officer to appear before the Court, Ms. N.

Manjushree, IAS, Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat

has appeared in the Court and upon her instructions, Ms.

Sumana Baliga, the learned counsel has made

submissions on behalf of the respondents.

7. The respondents have produced before this

Court, a Chart of Rates of Annual Letting Value and rate of

property tax notified by the State Government, for various

Gram Panchayat. According to this Circular dated

24.5.2003, the Annual Letting Value for different Gram

Panchayats, for the constructed portion of the ‘buildings’

11/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



for Anneswara Gram Panchayat is stated to be Rs.36.45

per Sq.M, whereas, the rate of tax for ‘vacant land’ has

been prescribed between Rs.3-4 per Sq.M of the land. The

copy of the said Circular dated 24.5.2003 along with the

said Table of Rates of Annual Letting Value of Tax has

been placed on record, with a copy given to the learned

counsel for the petitioner and the same was taken on

record and the arguments were heard.

8. On a first reading of the said Circular with the

said Table of Rates itself, it is clear that the rate of tax

between Rs.3-4 per Sq.M is far in excess of the maximum

Scheduled rate of Re.1 only for 100 Sq.M of land vide

Item-2 of Schedule -IV of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj

Act, 1993. The said rate of Rs.3 to 4 per Sq.M of land,

therefore, apparently is not sustainable and is in conflict

with the legislative rates prescribed in the Schedule-IV. It

is well settled that in exercise of delegated legislative

powers, the State Government cannot prescribe a rate of

12/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



tax more than the maximum legislative rate prescribed in

the Schedule of the Act itself.

9. Secondly, as far as the assessment of Annual

Letting Value of building as prescribed in the Schedule-

IV is concerned, that is also a matter of assessment and

adjudication by the competent authority. The term “Annual

Letting Value” as contained in Explanation in Schedule-IV

reads as under:

“Explanation: “Annual Letting Value” means

“the annual rent for which any building or land, exclusive of furniture or machinery

contained or situated therein or thereon, might reasonably be expected to be let from

year to year”.

10. This apparently and obviously means that the

determination of Annual Letting Value is to be made by

the competent adjudicating authority. Even if it is

presumed for the argument sake, as canvassed before this

Court that the Annual Letting Value fixed for the different

Gram Panchayats in the said Circular dated 24.5.2003 is to

13/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



be adopted for the purpose of assessment of ‘Annual

Letting Value’ in the case of present petitioner-assessee-

BIAL, none-the-less the requirement of compliance with

the principles of natural justice would require it to be

notified to the concerned assessee allowing him to raise

objection for determination of the ‘Annual Letting Value’

for imposition of tax. If the assessee, the Public Sector

Undertaking like BIAL in the present case agrees to adopt

the notified rates of ‘Annual Letting Value’, there may not

be any dispute with regard to that and perhaps, it may be

advisable for the public body like BIAL in the present case,

to avoid any such dispute also, because, the State

Government can be believed to have fixed the ‘Annual

Letting Value’ for different Gram Panchayats based on

relevant factors considered by it and those rates of ‘Annual

Letting Value’ can be adopted as a measure of assessment

of tax for the vacant land and constructed area of building

also. But the rate of tax on such ‘Annual Letting Value’, in

14/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



any case, cannot go beyond the maximum legislative rate

of tax prescribed in Schedule-IV of the Act of 1993.

11. There is yet another practical problem of

assessment of tax in the present case. A huge area of

4000 Acres of land, belonging to the assessee-petitioner-

BIAL is spread into the territorial jurisdiction of four Gram

Panchayats named above. Therefore, apparently, four

different Assessing Authorities can legitimately have the

jurisdiction to assess the tax in respect of land and

building situated in their respective areas. Since this

particular one assessee- BIAL, being a Public Sector

Undertaking was also kept out of tax net for some initial

years and tax liability in respect of the property tax under

the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993,

is said to have commenced only with effect from the year

2010-2011. This aspect of the matter also appears to

have been considered at the level of State Government in

this regard and at the level of Principal Secretary, Rural

15/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



Development and Panchayat Raj Department on

11.10.2013 and copy of the Minutes have been placed on

record as Annexure-D in W.P.No.1140/2016 filed by the

petitioner. The relevant extract of the said Minutes is

quoted below for ready reference:-

“ In the light of the above, Principal Secretary, IDD

requested Principal Secretary, RDPR to examine

the request of BIAL in the above matters.

Mr. Bhaskar Bidapatti, Senior Director, BIAL

informed that as per the initial assessment, the

property tax for the area coming under the

jurisdiction of Anneshwara Gram Panchayat is

estimated at Rs.6.20 crores and for all the four

Gram Panchayats put together the total property

tax amount is estimated to be around Rs.10.00

crores. He requested that since any such outflow

of expenses would have direct impact on the User

Development Fee(UDF) being collected from the

passengers, whether the Government could extend

concessional rate while computing property tax

duly keeping in view that BIAL is essential

infrastructure project supported by both

Govt.of India and Govt. of Karnataka.

Principal Secretary, RDPR mentioned that under

Section 199 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Gram

Panchayats are empowered to collect property tax

and there are only two categories viz., residential

and commercial enlisted in the instructions issued

for computing the property tax. Hence, even

though BIAL is a infrastructure project, since

there is no specific provision BIAL falls under

the commercial category and hence the tax

would be computed as applicable to such category.

However, he mentioned that instructions have

been issued by circular dated: 24.05.2003 to

16/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



constitute a Committee headed by the CEO,

Zilla Panchayat to suitably decide on the

annual letting value of proprietor. In this

regard, he requested CEO, Bangalore Rural Zilla

Panchayat to have a meeting with BIAL and

the concerned Gram Panchayats to examine

whether the annual letters value being adopted by

them is reasonable and appropriate, duly taking

into consideration the concerns expressed by

BIAL.”

12. The said consideration at the level of State

Government, prima-facie indicates that the respective

Gram Panchayats were supposed to nominate their

representatives before the Chief Executive Officer of the

Bengaluru Rural Zilla Panchayath, who is present in the

Court today also and thereafter and a unified assessment

procedure could be undertaken by the concerned authority

allowing the participation of the said Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Pnachayat, the petitioner-assessee, BIAL and

four Gram Panchayats. But it appears that the said unified

assessment procedure lost its way somewhere and

thereafter one of the Gram Panchayats viz.,the respondent

No.3-Anneswara Gram Panchayath gave the impugned

demand notice on 6.6.2014 and letter to the petitioner –

17/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



assessee insisting upon the payment of aforesaid property

tax by the petitioner-assessee-BIAL.

13. This unmindful unilateral exercise on the part of

one of the Gram Panchayats has not only resulted in

unnecessary litigation before this Court between the two

public organs of the State, but it has also opened the

possibilities of a conflict, as different rates of ‘Annual

Letting Value’ and rate of tax can be applied by the four

different Gram Panchayats for the assessment of property

tax on the same assesesee, for the same period, which is

clearly not permissible as far as rate of tax is concerned.

The petitioner-assessee-BIAL being in an unique position

like this, being the owner and in possession of a huge

chunk of land of 4000 Acres could very well be subjected

to this property tax by the one unified assessment

procedure as contemplated and discussed in the said

meeting of the Principal Secretary to Rural Development

and Panchayath Raj Department as indicated in Annexure-

18/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



D Minutes dated 11.10.2013 and even now that remains

not only a desirable but necessary procedure to avoid

unnecessary litigation and conflict of application of relevant

law to the one assessee.

14. This Court, is therefore, not inclined, nor it is

required to go into the merits of the claims of the rival

parties before this Court, but these writ petitions deserve

to be disposed of with the following directions to both the

parties:

(i) The impugned demand notices in all

these writ petitions raising the demand of

property tax against the petitioner-assessee-

BIAL are quashed and set aside;

(ii) The assessment powers for assessing

the property tax under the provisions of

Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act 1993 are

directed to be exercised only by sole Assessing

Authority, viz., the respondent No.2-Chief

Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, Bengaluru

Rural District, qua the present assessee, BIAL,

19/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



having the unique feature which it has, as

aforesaid;

(iii) The said Officer, respondent No.2-

Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath,

Bengaluru Rural District, is directed to serve

the comprehensive show-cause notice to the

petitioner–assessee within a period of one

month from today as well as to the four Gram

Panchayats involved in this case as aforesaid,

along with the relevant material documents/

Circulars, etc., relied upon by the respondent

for this levy allowing them to participate in the

assessment proceedings;

(iv) The Petitioner-assessee-BIAL may

show cause before the said Respondent No.2

along with its relevant evidence within next

period of one month;

(v) The said respondent No.2-Chief

Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, Bengaluru

Rural District, is directed to pass speaking

Assessment Order adjudicating and deciding

the objections of the petitioner-assesssee

within next one month thereafter and serve

the adjudication order along with the demand

20/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



notices upon the petitioner assessee, a copy of

which will also be served on the concerned

four Gram Panchayats also;

(vi) The petitioner-assessee is directed

to abide by the said order and pay the due

demand of property tax in terms of that order,

within a period of three months thereafter;

(vii) Upon the said tax revenue being

collected by respondent No.2-the Chief

Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru

Rural District, the said property tax revenue

shall be allocated and distributed amongst the

four Gram Panchayats involved in the present

cases depending upon the land area in their

respective territorial jurisdiction, for which, the

respective Gram Panchayat may submit the

requisite evidence for establishing their

respective land areas, before the said

respondent No.2;

(viii) The tax on ‘Annual Letting Value’ of

building will entirely go to Respondent-

Anneswara Gram Panchayat and remaining tax

revenue will be distributed amongst the four

21/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



Gram Panchayats in the aforesaid rates of

their respective land areas;

(ix) The aforesaid entire exercise of

notice, reply, assessment, collection and

distribution of tax should be completed on or

before the end of this financial year

31/3/2017;

(x) The respondent No.2-the Chief

Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat, shall be at

liberty to consider and apply the provisions of

the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Gram Panchayat

Taxes and Fees) Rules 1994, while passing

the aforesaid order as directed by this Court;

(xi) The property tax already been paid

by the petitioner-assessee for the year 2010-

2011 will remain subject to the final

adjudication by the respondent No.2 and will

be adjusted against the demand so raised by

the respondent No.2 in the aforesaid order;

(xii) It is made clear that in view of the

aforesaid position of the facts and law in this

regard, the said respondent No.2 will not

impose any penalty or interest for the alleged

delay in payment of tax by the petitioner-

22/22


and WP Nos.22771/2016 & 25224-25225/2016



assessee, for the assessment period prior to

passing of this order, namely for the financial

years 2010-11 to 2016-17;

(xiii) That since a regular appeal under

the provisions of Section 201 of the Act of

1994, read with Rule 39 lies before the said

respondent No.2 Authority itself at Zilla

Panchayat Level, in view of the aforesaid

directions directing the said respondent No.2-

Chief Executive Officer only to pass the

aforesaid assessment order, it goes without

saying that in case, the petitioner-assessee

feels aggrieved by the order passed by

respondent No.2, it will be at liberty to

approach this Court by way of fresh writ

petition.

Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

tsn*

Documents

BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/... · in the high court of karnataka, bengaluru dated this the 15th day of november 2016