Latest news with #SachinShankarMagadum
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Local authority has no power to collect taxes from establishments in industrial areas under KIADB, says Karnataka High Court
The High Court of Karnataka has said gram panchayats have no power in law to levy or collect taxes from industrial establishments located within the industrial areas notified and developed by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development (KIAD) Act, 1966. 'The power to regulate and approve development activities, including the right to levy and collect tax within such industrial estates, vests exclusively with the KIADB. The gram panchayat cannot usurp such authority in the absence of a specific statutory conferment,' the court said. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum passed the order while allowing the petitions filed by Kalpatharu Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and several other industrial establishments situated in Sompura industrial area of Nelamangala near Bengaluru. The petitioners had questioned the notices issued by the Sompura Grama Panchayat asking them to pay property tax. Jurisdiction issue The court said the local authorities get jurisdiction over industrial areas only when the government issues a notification under Section 37 of the KIAD Act transferring the industrial areas from the control of the KIADB to the local authorities concerned. 'Until such notification is issued, the jurisdiction of the KIADB remains intact and exclusive. Further, Section 47 of the KIAD Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act over any other law that is inconsistent with its provisions. The statutory scheme therefore leaves no room for implied or incidental exercise of jurisdiction by any local authority, including gram panchayats,' the court said, while setting aside notices issued by the gram panchayat to the industrial establishments.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Gram panchayats lack authority to levy property tax on Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board industrial estates: High court
Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has ruled that gram panchayats have no authority or jurisdiction to demand property tax from industrial establishments set up in industrial areas or estates of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). In his order, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said that only in instances where the industrial areas or estates have been withdrawn from KIADB's jurisdiction do gram panchayats gain jurisdiction. Industries set up in Tumakuru city, Sompura, Thyamagondlu, and Dabaspet KIADB industrial areas (all Bengaluru) challenged the demand notices for payment of property tax issued by their respective gram panchayats. The petitioners asserted that Section 37 of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act stipulates that the provisions of Karnataka Municipalities Act or Panchayat Raj Act can apply to an industrial area only upon its withdrawal from the purview of KIADB by way of an express notification issued by the state govt. According to them, in their cases, no such notification was issued. The KIADB also supported the petitioners. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru On the other hand, gram panchayats submitted that they are the local body providing basic civic amenities and infrastructure to industrial plots. Therefore, they are authorised under Schedule-IV to Panchayat Raj Act to levy property tax on industrial establishments. Justice Magadum said none of the documents placed on record confer any statutory authority on the panchayat to collect taxes in respect of industrial establishments located within areas notified and developed by the KIADB under the provisions of the KIAD Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Xu hướng tủ lạnh 2025: Chọn lựa thông minh với giá cả hợp lý LocalPlan Tìm Ngay Undo Mere execution of a lease-cum-sale agreement or any administrative communication cannot vest such power in the gram panchayat in the absence of express delegation or statutory backing. "Consequently, the power to regulate and approve development activities, including the right to levy and collect tax within such industrial estates, vests exclusively with KIADB. The gram panchayat cannot usurp such authority in the absence of a specific statutory conferment," the court said, allowing the petitions.
Time of India
30-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka HC stays AAR notice to Juspay in Namma Yatri case
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The High Court has stayed the Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling 's (AAR) notice to Juspay Technologies , informing the Softbank-funded startup that it might void an earlier ruling that said its Namma Yatri app was not liable to collect GST on rides booked on the AAR notice came after Juspay's subsidiary, Moving Tech Innovations , filed an application before the AAR seeking a separate ruling after acquiring the Namma Yatri Sachin Shankar Magadum stayed the show cause notice dated June 19, 2025, on a writ petition from Juspay Technologies. The order, issued on June 26, was uploaded on the high court website on Monday. The judge also ordered notice to the AAR.'The short point that arises for consideration before this Court is whether respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner for AAR, Karnataka) was justified in issuing the show cause notice dated 19.06.2025 to the petitioner-company under Section 104 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, solely on the ground that the petitioner-company has transferred its assets to Moving Tech Innovations, a registered company and an associated entity of the petitioner,' the order petitioner argued that invoking Section 104 was permissible only in cases involving suppression of material facts or misrepresentation. In the present case, the transfer of assets from Juspay to Moving Tech Innovations does not, by itself, amount to either suppression or judge said he found prima facie merit in the petitioner's submission. 'A perusal of the impugned show cause notice does not reveal any specific or detailed allegation of suppression or misrepresentation. It appears that the sole basis for issuance of the impugned notice is the transfer of assets by the petitioner-company to Moving Tech Innovations. The action of the authority in invoking Section 104 of the Act, therefore, warrants a deeper examination.' The court asked the additional government advocate to come back on the case and justify invoking Section 104 of the CGST Act AAR, a statutory body that provides clarity on the applicability of GST, had on September 15, 2023, ruled that Namma Yatri was not liable to collect GST on auto-rickshaw fares because it followed a software-as-a-service (SaaS) AAR, in its notice, had said it could declare the September 2023 ruling void because Juspay had obtained it by suppressing/misrepresenting material facts. Also, the earlier ruling was binding only on the applicant who had sought it (Juspay, which no longer owns Namma Yatri) and the concerned jurisdictional GST officials, it renewed action in the Namma Yatri case comes at a time when app-based ride-hailing services such as Uber, Ola, and Rapido are stepping up efforts to resolve their differences with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs ( CBIC ) over the applicability of GST on rides booked through ecommerce platforms.
Indian Express
21-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Co-operative farm societies entitled to same power subsidies as individual farmers: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that cooperative farmer societies would be entitled to claim power subsidies on the lines of individual farmers, noting that it would be unconstitutional to deal with the groups differently. The order passed last month by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was recently made public. 'Farmers who organise themselves into societies to share irrigation resources and reduce costs should be incentivized, not penalized. The denial of the subsidy for collective consumption contradicts the purpose of the subsidy, which is to support the farming community,' the court held, while directing authorities to frame guidelines to extend power subsidies to farmer societies. In this case, office-bearers of certain farmer societies had approached the court regarding a lift irrigation project that they had constructed on the River Krishna in Athani Taluk to benefit around 300 acres of land, arguing that the societies, unlike individual farmers, were not able to access subsidies for the benefit of marginalised farmers. The counsel for the societies argued that this was a case where the subsidised power supply was denied to them only because they were in a society. He argued that this was an arbitrary act since the power consumption between the societies and individuals was the same on a per capita basis. The opposing counsel representing Hubli Electricity Supply Company (HESCOM) stated that bills were raised proportionate to the power consumption of the society, and they were bound to pay the outstanding bills, while the societies had assented to the conditions of the agreement in 2016. The Advocate General representing the state also pointed out that the farmers could avail of a subsidy on an individual basis, but having joined the society, they could not do so, having exceeded the limit on power consumption. It was also argued that the petition of the societies had only been commenced after HESCOM initiated recovery proceedings for the outstanding bills. While considering the matter, the court stated, 'The central issue arises from whether denying power tariff subsidies to societies of farmers while granting the subsidy to individual farmers constitutes an arbitrary classification and violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution…. The current classification between individual farmers and farmer societies is arbitrary and lacks a rational nexus with the objective of the subsidy'. However, the court noted that apart from the matter of subsidy, the societies would still have to settle the outstanding payment with HESCOM and could not use the argument of restrictions during the Covid period.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Farmer societies too eligible for power subsidy, high court rules
Bengaluru: The Dharwad bench of Karnataka high court instructed the state govt and electricity distribution companies to modify their current framework to ensure fair treatment between farmer societies and individual farmers. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued this ruling, declaring the Sept 4, 2008 govt order 'unconstitutional'. The govt order withholds power tariff subsidy from farmer societies solely because their collective consumption surpasses the specified horsepower limit. "The authorities must frame and notify appropriate guidelines within a reasonable period (preferably six months) to extend power tariff subsidies to registered farmer societies, in a manner that aligns with the principles of equality, promotes cooperative farming, and advances the broader goals of sustainable agricultural development," the judge stated in his order. Two farmers' cooperative societies from Athani taluk in Belagavi district contested Hubballi Electricity Supply Company Ltd's (Hescom) demand notice and the govt order. The petitioners established lift irrigation projects on the river Krishna, benefiting 200 acres and 103 acres in Parthanahalli and Madhabhavi villages, costing approximately Rs 5.8 crore. The petitioners noted that Hescom sought Rs 3,995.2 crore in subsidies from state govt, which released Rs 5,067.7 crore. They claimed the state paid subsidies for unmetered installations, based on estimated consumption, contradicting the Electricity Act regulations and govt orders. The petitioner-society's main complaint centres on the state's constitutional duty to provide water access. They argued that farmers who formed societies to create lift irrigation schemes face discrimination, whilst individual IP holders receive subsidies for multiple IP sets. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners contended that denying agricultural power tariff subsidies to marginal farmer societies, whilst granting them to individual farmers violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hescom responded that the petitioners' difficulties stemmed from the Covid pandemic. The state govt maintained that society members could access the scheme individually, but collective applications were excluded by policy. They specified a 10 HP meter limit for irrigation facilities. They suggested the petitioner-society approached court to avoid Hescom's recovery proceedings. However, Justice Magadum observed that marginal farmers in collectives represent the same group eligible for individual subsidies. Denying subsidies to collectives solely for exceeding the 10 HP limit contradicts the goal of supporting small and marginal farmers. The power subsidy intends to make irrigation affordable, ensure fair water access, and promote sustainable farming, but excluding farmer societies undermines these objectives.
