High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition for Refund of Illegal Tax Collected by Grama Panchayath from Poultry Farm Owner. Levy of Property Tax on Agricultural Land Used for Poultry Farming Held Unauthorized Under Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 64
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, K Narasimhamurthy, is the absolute owner of agricultural land bearing No.35 measuring 4 acres situated at Nagasandra Village, Sondekoppa Post, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. He set up a poultry farm in a portion of the said land. To obtain an electricity connection, he approached the Karnataka Electricity Board, which required a no-objection certificate from the Sondekoppa Grama Panchayath. The Panchayath issued a notice dated 20.09.2013 demanding payment of Rs.59,551/- as property tax for the poultry farm. The petitioner paid the amount under protest and later filed a writ petition seeking refund of the amount and quashing of the notice. The Court examined whether the Panchayath had the authority to levy property tax on agricultural land used for poultry farming. It held that poultry farming is an agricultural activity and the land continues to be agricultural land, which is exempt from property tax under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The levy was without jurisdiction and illegal. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the notice, and directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.59,551/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment until realization, within eight weeks.

Headnote

A) Local Self-Government - Property Tax - Levy on Agricultural Land - Sections 199, 200 Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - The Grama Panchayath levied property tax on agricultural land used for poultry farming - The Court held that poultry farming is an agricultural activity and the land remains agricultural, thus not subject to property tax under the Act - The levy was without authority of law and the Panchayath was directed to refund the amount collected with interest (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Sondekoppa Grama Panchayath was justified in levying property tax on agricultural land used for poultry farming and whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the tax collected.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 20.09.2013 (Annexure-A) is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.59,551/- collected from the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from the date of payment until realization, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Law Points

  • Property tax cannot be levied on agricultural land used for poultry farming
  • Poultry farming is an agricultural activity
  • Grama Panchayath has no jurisdiction to impose tax on agricultural land
  • Refund of illegally collected tax with interest is permissible
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (KAR) (09) 39

WP No. 38871 of 2016 (LB-TAX)

2023-09-05

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

V P Kulkarni for petitioner, M Pradeep for respondents

K Narasimhamurthy

Sondekoppa Grama Panchayath, Planning & Development Officer

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging levy of property tax by Grama Panchayath on agricultural land used for poultry farming and seeking refund.

Remedy Sought

Refund of Rs.59,551/- collected by Sondekoppa Grama Panchayath with interest and quashing of notice dated 20.09.2013.

Filing Reason

The petitioner paid property tax under protest for his poultry farm on agricultural land, which he contends is not leviable as the land is agricultural.

Issues

Whether the Grama Panchayath can levy property tax on agricultural land used for poultry farming under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the tax paid under protest.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that poultry farming is an agricultural activity and the land remains agricultural, hence not subject to property tax. Respondents contended that the poultry farm is a commercial activity and liable to property tax.

Ratio Decidendi

Poultry farming is an agricultural activity and the land used for it continues to be agricultural land, which is exempt from property tax under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Grama Panchayath has no jurisdiction to levy property tax on agricultural land, and any such levy is illegal and without authority of law.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing No.35 measuring 4 acres situated at Nagasandra Village... Poultry farming is an agricultural activity and the land continues to be agricultural land, which is exempt from property tax under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed WP No. 38871 of 2016 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 20.09.2013 issued by the Sondekoppa Grama Panchayath demanding property tax of Rs.59,551/- and seeking refund of the amount paid under protest. The petition was heard and disposed of on 05.09.2023.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993: 199, 200
  • Constitution of India: 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition for Refund of Illegal Tax Collected by Grama Panchayath from Poultry Farm Owner. Levy of Property Tax on Agricultural Land Used for Poultry Farming Held Unauthorized Under Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal to Quash Criminal Proceedings in Commercial Dispute — Allegations of Cheating and Forgery Not Purely Civil in Nature. The Court held that the High Court correctly declined to quash proceedings under Se...