SRINIVASA TRUST Vs. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Trust claiming to be running Educational Institutions is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality and correctness of demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Sa.Kum.Aa (Y.U)/Ma.Va/PR/136/2022-23 dtd. 1/8/2022 (Annexure-P) and also to declare that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no authority of law to levy property tax upon the petitioner with respect to the schedule property in view of the general exemption granted under Sec. 110(1)(e) and Sec. 110(1)(i) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short '1976 Act').

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.Rohan Hosmath for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.K.Ramesh for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-Trust is running Educational Institutions in the property, on which the respondent-BBMP has raised property tax under the impugned notice. It is submitted that the petitioner's Educational Institutions are not liable to pay property tax in view of the exemption under Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act. Learned counsel would further points out Annexure-G2 dtd. 12/7/2014, wherein, the petitioner had brought to the notice of the respondent-BBMP with regard to the Educational Institutions run by the petitioner in the properties in question. Learned counsel would also invite attention of this Court to Annexure-K, the statement, which indicates the payments made by the petitioner from the year 2011 onwards till 2021, which would totally amounts to Rs.10,12,53,453.00. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the impugned demand notice, demanding property tax from 2008-09 onwards from the petitioner-Trust is wholly illegal and opposed to Sec. 110 of the 1976 Act.