<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to submit a spot inspection report in a petition filed challenging the revised property tax, which also prescribes penalty with interest.</p>.<p>Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order directing the officials to conduct spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by Roopa B Rao, a resident of RMV Extension, Aramane Nagar, Bengaluru. The notices as well as the orders issued by the BBMP demanded payment of Rs 17.71 lakh, inclusive of 4.82 lakh differential value of property tax from 2016-17 till 2022-23, Rs 9.65 lakh as penalty for the same period, and Rs 3.23 lakh as interest.</p>.<p>The petitioner contended that as per Section 144 (15) of the BBMP Act, 2020, the BBMP chief commissioner or the person authorised by him should issue notice of re-assessment to the tax payer followed by an order by the chief commissioner or authorised officer. In her case, the assistant revenue officer (ARO) has initiated proceedings, but she contends he is not an authorised officer under the Act.</p>.<p>The petition challenged Section 144 (15) (b) of the BBMP Act, 2020, on the ground that it places an unbridled and unguided power on the executive to impose penalty over and above twice the tax without prescribing an upper limit. “The power to impose penalty is quasi criminal/criminal in nature and the same cannot be exercised by an officer who is not a judicial authority,” the petition said.</p>.<p>The petition also challenged the December 6, 2023, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the chief commissioner for assessment, recovery and management of property tax and property record. The petition said that the commissioner issuing such SOP is a case of usurping the state government’s power of rule making. The petitioner also stated that no rules have been framed for the implementation of the BBMP Act. </p>.<p>In the case of the petitioner, it was submitted that as per the show cause notices the property is shown in the 'B' Zone, whereas the report of the revenue inspector places the property in the 'C' Zone. It was claimed that while the first floor was vacant since 2016, the officials reported that the entire building had been tenanted. In spite of this, higher tax is demanded, which does not stand to reason, the petition said.</p>.<p>The petitioner further contended that the orders for the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are without jurisdiction for the simple reason that the BBMP Act received the governor's assent only on December 21, 2020.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to submit a spot inspection report in a petition filed challenging the revised property tax, which also prescribes penalty with interest.</p>.<p>Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav passed the order directing the officials to conduct spot inspection in the presence of the petitioner.</p>.<p>The petition was filed by Roopa B Rao, a resident of RMV Extension, Aramane Nagar, Bengaluru. The notices as well as the orders issued by the BBMP demanded payment of Rs 17.71 lakh, inclusive of 4.82 lakh differential value of property tax from 2016-17 till 2022-23, Rs 9.65 lakh as penalty for the same period, and Rs 3.23 lakh as interest.</p>.<p>The petitioner contended that as per Section 144 (15) of the BBMP Act, 2020, the BBMP chief commissioner or the person authorised by him should issue notice of re-assessment to the tax payer followed by an order by the chief commissioner or authorised officer. In her case, the assistant revenue officer (ARO) has initiated proceedings, but she contends he is not an authorised officer under the Act.</p>.<p>The petition challenged Section 144 (15) (b) of the BBMP Act, 2020, on the ground that it places an unbridled and unguided power on the executive to impose penalty over and above twice the tax without prescribing an upper limit. “The power to impose penalty is quasi criminal/criminal in nature and the same cannot be exercised by an officer who is not a judicial authority,” the petition said.</p>.<p>The petition also challenged the December 6, 2023, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the chief commissioner for assessment, recovery and management of property tax and property record. The petition said that the commissioner issuing such SOP is a case of usurping the state government’s power of rule making. The petitioner also stated that no rules have been framed for the implementation of the BBMP Act. </p>.<p>In the case of the petitioner, it was submitted that as per the show cause notices the property is shown in the 'B' Zone, whereas the report of the revenue inspector places the property in the 'C' Zone. It was claimed that while the first floor was vacant since 2016, the officials reported that the entire building had been tenanted. In spite of this, higher tax is demanded, which does not stand to reason, the petition said.</p>.<p>The petitioner further contended that the orders for the assessment year 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are without jurisdiction for the simple reason that the BBMP Act received the governor's assent only on December 21, 2020.</p>