- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:773 WP No. 56104 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 56104 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. HAMPSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SY NO.40/41, VILLAGE THONNACHI KUPPE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 123, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MRS. HARISH CHANDRA PANT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. A.M. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. 2. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BUDHIHAL GRAM PANCHAYAT, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNX-B DATED Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:773 WP No. 56104 of 2017 23.01.2017 AND ANNX-D DATED 7.11.2017 THE DEMAND NOTICE AND THE ATTACHMENT WARRANT ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are challenging the demand notice dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure-B) in which a sum of Rs.17,00,977/- has been claimed by the Gram Panchayath. 2. The case of the petitioners was that the computation of the tax payable would be made by the panchayath would be illegal. The petitioners had in fact submitted a representation clarifying the method in which the tax was to be computed. The copy of the representations also produced at Annexure 'C','E' and 'F'. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:773 WP No. 56104 of 2017 3. It is the case of the learned senior counsel that, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the panchayath would consider the contentions raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders. 4. In my view this is a reasonable demand made by the petitioner. Since the petitioner is questioning the manner in which the tax has been computed by the Panchyath and is putting forth the alternative method of computation, it would be appropriate to direct the panchayath to consider the representations referred to above and pass orders afresh. 5. Until the matter is considered by the Gram Panchayath, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. On payment of the said sum, the panchayath will consider the objections and pass appropriate orders. 6. It is needless to state that if the contention of the petitioner is upheld, the amount stated by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:773 WP No. 56104 of 2017 petitioner pursuant to this order shall be adjusted and the remaining shall be refunded. 7. The panchayath shall also consider the objections filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of payment of aforesaid sum of Rs.25,00,000/- by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be heard in the matter before the panchayath passes an order. Accordingly, Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60 CT: BHK