SHARIFF CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for de-sealing the premises and has further sought for setting aside of the notice at Annexure-D which is the demand notice issued by the respondent - BBMP stipulating the property tax, cesses, interest, penalty, solid waste management cess and total amount due with respect to the year 2019-2020. Petitioner has also sought for refund of excess tax collected from the petitioner.

(2.) It is noticed that in most of the petitions filed by the property owners, the contention that is taken is that the demand notice raised as well as the show cause notice issued, are not preceded by the procedure stipulated under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') and accordingly, it is submitted that unless there is an inspection in their presence, the consequential notices and orders are required to be set aside.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent - BBMP it is submitted that inspection has been carried out and the details are ascertained and on the basis of which show cause notices and demand notices have been issued and on the basis of the inspection report, the re-assessment has been done on the material collected at the time of inspection and procedure as provided under Sec. 144 of the Act, has been complied with. Accordingly, it is submitted that the question of interfering with the impugned demand notice does not arise.