S. GANESH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is admittedly the owner of the property bearing No.9/1 situated at 15th Cross, 2nd Main, Domalur, Bengaluru City, is aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 2/12/2016 at Annexure-D passed by the respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer, Domlur Sub- Division, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Bengaluru and a Police Notice dtd. 23/1/2017 at Annexure-F.

(2.) The respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer, Domlur Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru, appears to have passed the impugned order dtd. 2/12/2016 on the premise that an advertisement hoarding was erected on the property belonging to the petitioner, without taking necessary permission from the BBMP, which is the local authority vested with the power to grant permission for display of advertisement board in the city of Bengaluru. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits it is apparent from the impugned order that the order has been passed exparte, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the advertisement board was not put up by the petitioner. Although it is admitted that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the fourth respondent-M/s. J. P. Publicity permitting the fourth respondent to display a commercial hoarding in the premises belonging to the petitioner, nevertheless, in the lease agreement itself the fourth respondent was fastened with the liability of payment of any tax liability that would accrue from the advertisement.

(3.) That being the position, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the petitioner would have convinced the respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer that at the relevant point of time, there was no advertising board that was displayed in the premises and even if it was displayed, the liability has been fastened on the fourth respondent to pay the tax liability that would accrue from the advertisement hoardings. However, since no notice was issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer to the fourth respondent along with the notice issued to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained.