SANGHVI FOODS PVT. LTD. Vs. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash notice dtd. 15/3/2022 and attachment warrant dtd. 10/5/2022 (Annexures-H and L respectively), wherein the Gram Panchayath has demanded total tax of Rs.22,14,126.00 from the petitioner and has issued attachment warrant.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.L.Pradeep Kumar for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.G.Nataraj for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraju for respondent No.2. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted industrial site by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) at Avverahalli Industrial Area, 4th Stage, Dobbaspet. On payment of allotment price, KIADB executed lease-cum-sale in favour of the petitioner and also put the petitioner in possession of the industrial unit. Thereafter, the petitioner on obtaining sanction plan for construction of factory building from KIADB, constructed the factory building. While approving the sanction plan, KIADB collected the Requisite Fee and also Approval Charges and Labour Cess of Rs.5,00,000.00. It is submitted that the KIADB maintains the industrial area developed by it by collecting the requisite maintenance charges. It is submitted that the first respondent-Panchayath has no jurisdiction to demand tax as demanded under Annexure-H, demand notice dtd. 15/3/2022. Learned counsel would submit that the action of the first respondent-Panchayath is opposed to the order of this Court dtd. 31/5/2021 in W.P.No.11358/2014. Further, the learned counsel would also submit that the authority of the respondent-Panchayath to levy tax is not an absolute or unguided power. The power to levy tax by the Panchayath is available only in respect of the buildings and lands in the Panchayath area. Further, learned counsel would submit that the calculation of the tax by the Panchayath is not proper. In that, he submits that the petitioner would not be liable to pay the tax demanded under Annexure-H, demand notice.