IN rH HIGH COURT OP KRNXTAFA T BANOLORE Dated this the 8th day of June, 1998 Before: THE HON • BLE MR • WSTICE R. V. R ENDRAN it Petition No. 13645 of 1987 M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. 0 (Bangalore Complex), Services Division, Ban jalore—560 017, represented by its Chief Administrative Manager, (Legal & Estate) •.Petitioner (By Sri T.R. Subbanna, Advocate) —Vs — 1. Taxation Appeals Committee, Corporation of City of Bangalore, Corporation Offices, Bangalore—560 002, by its Chairman; 2. The Com”dssioner, Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore—2; 3. The Revenue Officer (North), Corporation of City of Bangalore, Corooration Offices, Bangalore—2; 4, The Asst, R 5 venue Officer, Gandhinagar Range, Office of the Commiss 4 oner, Corporation of the City of Bangalor 2 • .Resoondents (By Sri B.V.Muralidhar, \dvocate) Writ Petition is filed praying to lirect the R—2 to 4 to forbear from demanding and collecting layout charges or any other charges in respect of 2A 37 guntas of larr3. . . . 2 This wilt p°tion comng cr for haa-tng thia day the court irad’ the following” ORDER The petitioner is a government company It it owne.d the premi. es b aring No 37, 2nd Main Road, Sriramapuram. Bangalore and premises No 38, Railway Parallel Road, Sriramapuram, Bangalora. The fourth respondent issued a notice dt 9—2-1997 tAnnexure ‘E’) calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 93,456.20 as layout chargeq in regaid to an extent ot 2 acres 3/ guntas in the said properties. This was in the course of correspondence between the partieb relating to the assetsment of the property and registration of khata. The petitioner sought certain clarifications by its letter dated 1•4 1981 The fourth respondFnt prcvided thi sum by his repli dated 13—4—1987 [Annexure ‘El’), reiterating the demand for payment. Feeling agjrieved the petitioner hab filed are apceal betoro the Taxation Appeal Committee under Rule 18 of Schedule III to Karnatak Munnipal Corporations Act, challenging tie -aid demand Unfortunctely the appeal was not plated before the Taxaton Appeal rommittee at all. The third respondent chost upon himself to consider th appeal arid issued an endorsement dated 7-7—1987 [Annexure ‘G’) ‘-‘3- statirg that .n regard to tha reque.,t of petiti.mer for evemption under Section 110(3) of the Act and demand for layout charges, an appeal will not lie. C. .wh the Taxation Appeal Committee and therefore “ the demand for payment should be complied with. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition and sought quaahing of Annexure ‘L’, ‘El and ‘6’. The petitioner has also sought a direction to respondents 2 to 4 not to demand or collect layout charges it. regard to the properties in question. In the alternative, it has sought a direction to the respondents to place the appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. 2. It is not necessary to examine the matter on merits. When the. appeal is tiled, it v’ for th’ Appellate Authority to coTisider the same. The third respondent obviously could not have examined the appeal filed before the Taxation Appeal Committee and held that the appeal was not ndzntainable. The thin esFonient seriously erred in not placing the appeal before the Taxation Appeal Committee. and in procc.edzng with the matter himself. Hence, on this limited ground, this petition is allowed, Annexure ‘6’ is qua hed and the third respondent is inc ted to place the appeal beforo the first respoidnt for decision in accordance with law Th contentions of both the parties including the contention that an aPPealLnot be available to the petitioner, are left opPn, Till such a decision, the orpJratLon shall not enforce the recovery of amount claimed in Annexure ‘E’ and ‘Ely 1 Sd/ JUDGE xpjk