RAJA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the special demand notice dated 25-1-1992 issued under Section 147 of schedule iii, part ii (9) of the Karnataka municipal corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') demanding property tax of Rs. 4,12,617-25 with effect from 1-10-1991 the appellant preferred a revision before the concerned authority. The concerned authority of the corporation declined to interfere with the impugned notice. Thereupon, an appeal was filed to the taxation and appeals committee of the corporation. That appeal was rejected by a cryptic order. Thereupon, appellant preferred a further appeal to the district judge in miscellaneous appeal No. 105 of 1998. The learned vi additional city civil judge, Bangalore by an order dated 17-6-2000 rejected the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the entire tax levied has not been paid. The appellant then preferred a writ petition in W. P. No. 25531 of 2000. By an order dated 30-8-2000, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) IT appears, before the learned single judge, the order of the district judge was not specifically questioned though a ground was raised. It does not appear that the correctness of the view taken by the district judge has been challenged before the learned single judge. The argument turned more on the correctness of the demand raised. The learned single judge held that the taxation on annual rental value and the assessment in consequence thereof cannot be said to be unreasonable. The learned single judge also dealt with the other contentions raised as regards the validity of Rule 20 (a) of the taxation rules in schedule iii.

(3.) THE decision in civil revision petition No. 2637 of 1996 relied upon by the appellate judge has not considered the effect of the explanation to Rule 20 (a ). The only aspect which was decided by the learned single judge was whether the deposit of the amount beyond 30 days would be sufficient compliance with Rule 20 (a) of the rules. That question does not really arise here in view of the specific finding of the district judge that the tax has been paid within the time-limit, though not to the full extent.