I IN H’ HISH COtflT OP KRNATAKA AT BANALORE Dated this the 8th day of June, 193 Before: TH HON’ BLE MR • JSTICE R. V. RAVENDRAN Writ Pctition No, 9533 of 1993 Sri M, Jangamanna, s/o late Munivenkatappa, 15/1, Srinivasa Building, 2nd Cross, 1st Main Road, Chamarajapet, Ban;alore—18 ,,Petitioner (By Sri J,G, Chndra Mohan, Advocate -Vs 1, The Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, N,R, Square, Bangalore—2t 2, The Asst, Revenue Officer, Binnypet Range, B.C.C. Dr. T.C,M, RoyanRoad., Bangalora560 002 ,.Respondents (By Sri K,N,Puttegowda, Advocate) Writ Ptition is filed praying to quash the show cause notice No.6106 dated 1—2—1993 issued by the II respondent as oer Annexur—G and oass any other order. This writ p’tition coming on for preliminary hearing in’B’ Grouo this day, the Court made the following: — • 2 —2— ORDER The petitioner claims that he is the owner of premises bearing Io.11, situated at Vittalnagar Bangalore. The Bangalore City Corporation, after issue of a show cause notice dated 18—2—1992 (Ann exure—C) increasing the annual value and property tax and cesses passed an order dated 25-2—1993 (Annexure—D) confirming the proposal to increase the annual rental value of the premises to Rs.38,000/— and levy of tax at Rs.9,700/— and a cess of Rs,3,007/—. This was followed by a demand notice dated 1—2—1993 (AnnexureG) under Rule 27 of Schedule III to the Karnataka Municipal 0 orporations Act, 1976. The petitioner has contended that the Corporation has not constituted the Taxation Appeal Committee and therefore the appeal filed by him against the order dated 2 5—2—1993 has not been heard and he could not also get a stay and in the meanwhile, the respondents due informing recovery of the increased tax and he has no alternative remedy but to file this petition, He has therefore filed this petition and sought quashing of Annexure—G, 2. When the matter came up to—day, learned counsel for the corporation stated that the Taxation Appeal Committee has already been constituted and the said committee is functioning and it is open to the petitioner . • .3 —3— to persue the appeal before it, 3. In view of sai1 submission, this petition does not survive for consideration, as suitable orders could be obtained by the petitioner from the Appellate Authority. 4. Hence, this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appeal filed by him before the Taxation Appeal Committee, if it is not already disposed of. Till the disposal of appeal and communication of the decision to the petitioner k’he Corporation shall not enforce recovery of enhanced property tax, subject to the petitioner regularly paying the 30% of the tax due as per Anne.ire—D (as already directed by the interim order) • A Sd! JUDGE *pjk/ujk