9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1959, executed by one Smt. Kamala Krishna Iyengar and B. K. Govindaraj in respect of the property described in Schedules A and to the said lease deed. Schedule A refers to the premises bearing No. 12, "Manorama", Kempegowda Road, Bangalore, City, consisting of the main building and out houses along with adjoining vacant land. Schedule B is the portion of the main premises let out and on which there existed a petrol bunk and other structures. The petitioners executed a deed of agreement on September 7, 1966, as per annexure-B, in favour of one Smt. T. N. Subhadramma under which a vacant site measuring 50 x 50 ' which was a portion of the property let out under the lease deed, annexure-A, was sub-let for the purpose of constructing buil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings initiated against the petitioners who are tenants under the lease deed of June 1, 1959, are not maintainable in law and the recovery of the revised taxes cannot be enforced against them. The next contention of the petitioners is that they being only tenants of the leased premises, they cannot be made liable to pay the tax in respect of the property sub-let by them and that the tax that is being demanded from them exceeds the rent that they are recovering from the sub-lessees. The showrooms and other shop premises were put up by the sub-lessee under the agreement dated September 7, 1966, executed by the petitioner. The buildings put up on the vacant site by the petitioner were put in the possession of the sub-lessees as per the term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on the buildings constructed on it. Sri Castelino, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, opposed the stand of the petitioners relying on the provisions of section 112(2) and has contended that the tenant becomes primarily liable to pay the tax on the buildings put up on the land leased. He has also relied upon the Taxation Rules, and in particular rules 6 and 9 under which the liability is imposed on the occupier of the property along with the owner in case of revision of tax. This case, according to learned counsel, is covered by the special provisions of section 112(2) under which the tenant is made primarily likable to pay the tax. Learned counsel has also demonstrated that, under the scheme of the Act, the lessor of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he construction of the buildings, one of the stipulations of the agreement was to pay rent on the buildings let out to the second party. It was, therefore, a composite agreement of lease as well as an agreement for construction. As already stated, the duration of the lease of the buildings is conterminous with the lease, namely, for a period of 35 years from June 1, 1959. Therefore, the argument of Sri Shivaram that it was not a case of any land having been let under the agreement dated June 1, 1959, and that it was a composite lease of both building and land cannot be accepted. On proper construction of the terms of the lease deed, the lease was in respect of the entire premises bearing No, 12, Kempegowda Road, which included the buildin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the case on hand. Under rule 7 of the Taxation Rules, a special notice may be served on the owner or occupier of the property whenever there is a general revision or enhancement of the assessment. The owner or occupier may, on the service of such special notice, Me objections to the proposed enhancement and an order may be made after hearing objections by the Commissioner which is required to be served on the owner or occupier. The other rules contained in Part III relating to collection of taxes also become applicable and a notice under rule 26 may be served either on the owner or occupier. The rules also provide for recovery of the amount due on account of any tax by taking coercive steps either on the owner of the property or on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommittee. The administrator confirmed the demand and directed that it should be enforced with effect from April 1, 1980, only. It was, therefore, argued by learned counsel that the petitioner having accepted the order of the administrator, it is not open to him now to challenge the demand by way of a writ petition. I agree with the contentions of Sri Castelino, both on facts and law. The petitioner has failed in his attempt to dispute his liability under the Act and also as to the basis for the enhancement. A further appeal is provided under the Taxation Rules to the District Judge. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy so far as the enhancement of the rental value is concerned. The writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
