MYSORE PAPER MILLS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these petitions, the petitioners are assailing the orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Revision Court insofar as the property tax relating to the properties owned by the petitioners. The petitioners are also questioning the validity of the notification dated 17.05.2007. In that view, the petitioners have sought for quashing the orders and the notification which have been impugned in these petitions. In all these batch of petitions, the petitioners are same, while the tax demanded is in respect of the different items of properties belonging to the petitioners which are situated in different wards.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioners contend that by a notification dated 14.02.1985, the Government had constituted a notified area, wherein the petitioners and certain other similarly placed companies were required to maintain their own premises. In that view of the matter, the local authority did not have the jurisdiction to impose the property tax on the property belonging to the petitioners. In that circumstance, the petitioners have invested huge sums of money for development of the said area as if they were carrying out the civic function. When this was the position, the demand for tax was made vide Annexure -C dated 09.05.2000 in W.P. Nos.16483 -16484/2011 and similar demands in the connected petitions, the petitioners had assailed such demand by filing an appeal in M.A. No.16/2000 before the Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.), JMFC, Bhadravathi as provided under Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 in the first batch of petitions. The other appeals which were filed which is the subject matter in the connected petitions were also of the similar nature. The Appellate Court while considering the maintainability of the petitions for non deposit of the demand amount made against the petitioners has dismissed the appeal by the impugned order at Annexure -B. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same had preferred a revision petition before the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.106/2010 in the first batch of petitions and the revision petition also came to be dismissed. Same is the case in the connected matters. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners are assailing the orders at Annexures -A and B.

(3.) CONSIDERING that the demand was made in the year 2000 i.e. prior to the withdrawal of the exemption in the year 2007 and during the subsistence of the notification dated 14.02.1985, the said question was required to be considered in the appeals filed by the petitioner. In the appeal, the Appellate Court while taking note of the provisions contained under Section 150 of the Act was of the view that since the petitioners have not deposited the amount claimed by the impugned demand notices, the appeal would not be maintainable. In the revision filed by the petitioners against such order, though the revision Court has taken note of the subsequent position that only the admitted amount is to be deposited has thereafter indicated that the earlier notification has been subsequently withdrawn and therefore the admitted amount should have been deposited by the petitioners and as such the revision has also been dismissed.