M/S G.T.B. ENTERPRISES v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),ASHOK S.KINAGI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2020-03-04. M/S G.T.B. ENTERPRISES v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 33162 OF 2019 (GM-MMS) BETWEEN: M/S G. T. B. ENTERPRISES No. 233, THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT – 562 106 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI B. T. NAGARAJ REDDY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 - 2 - 4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMETN OF MINES AND GEOLOGY BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT V. V. TOWER, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VIDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 ...
RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. G. BHANUPRAKASH, AGA) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 01. 12. 2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-N, IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 24. 01. 2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-P, IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 21. 02. 2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND IMPUGNED FINAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED TH 09. 07. 2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-R ISSUED BY THE 4 RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Issue notice. The learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. The petition is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner was granted a quarrying lease on rd 3 July 2009. The petitioner has challenged the four notices in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The st first notice at Annexure-N dated 1 December 2018 is based th on the drone survey report of 29 October 2018 which calls upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be - 3 -directed to pay a royalty on the differential quantity mentioned th in the notice. On 24 January 2019, the petitioner filed a reply to the said notice. The reply is at Anenxure-N1. 4. Annexure-P which is the subject matter of th challenge is the demand letter dated 24 January 2019 which is a demand based only on audit report for the year 2017-18. th Even to the said demand notice, there is a reply dated 12 March 2019 (Annexure-P1). Annexure-Q is another show st cause notice based on the drone survey dated 21 December 2018 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the royalty on the basis of differential quantity stated in the notice should not be ordered to be paid by the petitioner. There is a th reply dated 13 March 2019 at Annexure-Q1 filed to the said notice.
The last notice subject matter of challenge is Annexure-R which is issued demanding the arrears of royalty for the year 2017-18. 5. Thus, as far as the notices at Annexures-N, P and Q are concerned, there are already replies submitted by the petitioner. As far as Annexure-P is concerned, it is a demand for the year 2017-18 on the basis of the audit report for which th there is a reply. The notice dated 8 July 2019 (Annexure-R) - 4 -has been issued without considering the reply issued by the petitioner to the earlier notice for the same year based on the audit report. 6. Though the notice at Annexure-Q refers to the reply filed by the petitioner, the same is based on the drone st survey report of 21 December 2018, whereas, the earlier notice to which the reply is submitted is based on the drone th survey report of 29 October 2018.
Hence, this petition deserves to be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the replies issued to the first three notices and to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, we pass the following order: (i) We direct the concerned respondents to pass orders on Anneuxres-N, P and Q after taking into consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today; (ii) The impugned notice at Annexure-R is set aside only on the ground that the demand made therein will have to be considered while dealing - 5 -with the demand based on the audit report of the year 2017-18; (iii) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.