- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3373 OF 2022 (APMC) BETWEEN: M/S ANKITHA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR - SRI VIVEKANANDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS SWAMY S/O RAMEGOWDA N C NADUVANAHALLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY NO.16/11, RAJABHAVANA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR LEGAL ENFORCEMENT CELL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET DEPARTMENT NO.16, 2ND RAJBHAVAN ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 4. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE HULIYURU, B H ROAD, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572218 BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ENFORCEMENT 41, SOUTH ZONE BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T. KOLLER., AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5; SRI. A.C. BALARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2021 IN APPEAL PASSED BY THE R2 CONFIRMING THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE R3 AND CONFIRMING THE SAME ISSUED NOTICE DATED 20.12.2021 BY THE R4 COPIES OF WHICH ARE HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-Q, N AND S RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs; "(i) ISSUE a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the dated 31.5.2021 in Appeal No.Kru.Ma.E/Ni.Ya.Vi/Appealu/09/2019-20 passed by the 2nd respondent confirming the office order dated 8.7.2019 in No. Kru.Ma.E/He.Ni/(Kajako): 98:2018-19 issued by the third respondent and confirming the same issued Notice dated 20.12.2021 vide No.Kru.Vu.Ma.Sa. (Hu)/120/2021-22 by the 4th respondent copies of which are herewith produced and marked as Annexures-Q, N & S respectively. (ii) ISSUE any other writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Petitioner is a licensee carrying on the trade in the three APMC market yards namely, Thimmanahalli, Naduvanali and Gubbi. It appears that respondent No.5-Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement 41, South Zone, Bangalore) had visited the business places of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had stored the stock at undeclared godown instead of storing the same in the declared godown. Consequently, passed the order directing the petitioner to pay the differential tax amount. Accordingly, petitioner appears to have made the payment of ₹10,00,000/- and ₹10,24,372/- respectively as seen in Annexures-D2 and D3. Consequent upon the said order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 of the Commercial Tax Officer, the respondent No.4-APMC issued show cause notice as per Annexure-E and the notices as per Annexures-F and H calling upon the petitioner to pay market fee together with fine amount which is equivalent to 3 times of the market fee. 3. Petitioner had submitted response/reply as per Annexure-G and M respectively specifically contending that the demand by the Sales Tax Department was not on account of excess storage of goods but due to storage of goods at an undeclared godown. Petitioner also raised specific contention that he had paid market fee in respect of entire goods stored in all the three godowns. Therefore, the demand made by the respondent No.3-Market Committee calling upon the petitioner to pay the market fee and the fine was misplaced. 4. Rejection of the response of the petitioner resulted in petitioner preferring an appeal under Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market Affairs (Regulation & Development) Act, 1966, which was also dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits that the very premise on which the respondent No.3- Market Committee has called upon the petitioner to pay the market fee is the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Department. She submits though the same cannot be the basis for the respondent No.3- Market Committee to call upon petitioner to pay the market fee together with the penalty, the distinguishing factum being that the Commercial Tax Department had imposed the tax merely on the ground of petitioner storing the goods at undeclared godown and not on account of excess storage or difference of quantity of storage. She submits, the respondent-authorities have misconstrued and misconceived the same to be a case of excess storage of goods. She further submits this aspect of the matter has not been considered either by the original authority or by the Appellate Authority, resulting in unsustainable order. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4-APMC fairly submits given some time, the case of the petitioner will be reconsidered as contented in the response and in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 grounds of appeal and appropriate order in this regard will be passed. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. The impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed by Additional Director produced at Annexure-N as well as the order by the respondent No.2-Appellate Authority as per Annexure-Q indicate that the same proceeds on the basis of the orders passed by the respondent No.5-Commercial Tax Officer. The order dated 08.07.2019 at Annexure-N reads as under; ಕಾಟಕ ಸಾರ ಕೃ ಾ ಾಟ ಇಾೆ ಸಂೆ:ಕೃಾಇ:ºÉ(ಾಾೋ): 98 :2018-19 ಕೃ ಾ ಾಟ ೆಚುವ ೇಶಕರ ಕ ೇ ಾನೂನು ಾೋಶ, ಕೃ ಾ ಾಟ ೇಶಾಲ ನಂ.16, 2ೇ ಾಜಭವನ ರ%ೆ&, '.(.ನಂ.53, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-01, zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ:22866085. ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.07.2019. ಕ ೇ ಕ ೇ ಕ ೇ ಕ ೇ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ ಆೇಶ *ಷಯ : ಅನ.ಕೃತ ಅ0ೆ ವವಾರೆ1 ಾರುಕ2ೆ3 ಶುಲ1 ಮತು& ದಂಡ 7ಾವ8ಸುವ ಬ:ೆ;. ಉೆ=ೕಖ:-1.ಈ ಕ ೇಯ ಾರಣ ೇA ೋBೕC ಸಂೆ: ಕೃಾಇ: ೆ (ಾಾೋ): 98: 2018-19 ¢£ÁAPÀ 21.02.2019. 2. ಈ ಕ ೇಯ 8ಳEವAೆ ಪತG ಸಂೆ: ಕೃಾಇ: ºÉ(ಾಾೋ): 98: 2018 19 ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.03.2019 3. Hಾಂಕ*ಲ=ದ ಮI ಪತG Hಾಂಕ: 18.04.2019 ರಂದು ಈ ಕ ೇಯJ= KLೕಕೃ8MಾNರುತ&ೆ. 4. Hಾಂಕ:23.04.2019 ರ ಈ ಕ ೇಯ 8ಳEವAೆ ಪತG. 5. Hಾಂಕ:10.05.2019 ರ ಈ ಕ ೇಯ 8ಳEವAೆ ಪತG. 6. Hಾಂಕ: 14.06.2019ರ ಈ ಕ ೇಯ 8ಳEವAೆ ಪತG. 7. ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.06.2019. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 Oೕಲ1ಂಡ *ಷಯೆ1 ಸಂಬಂ.KದಂPೆ, ೕವQ Hಾಂಕ:06.09.2014 ರಂದು ಉಪ ೇಶಕರು, ಕೃ ಾ ಾಟ ಇಾೆ ತುಮಕೂರು ರವಂದ ಅಂRPಾ 2ೆGೕಡC, 8ಮIನಹAT, Uಕ1ಾಯಕನಹAT *Vಾಸೆ1 ವತಕರ ೈ%ೆXY ಪZೆHರು8&ೕ. ಾರಣ [ಾ\ಜ Pೆ:ೆ ಇಾೆರವರ ಾAಯ ಸಂದಭದJ= ಸ[ೆ 11/7 ನಡು*ನಹAT, :ೋZೆೆ ೆ ೋ, Uಕ1ಾಯಕನಹAT Pಾಲೂ=ಕು ಸ]ಳದJ= ^Kರುವ :ೋಾ^ನJ=ರುವ ಅ0ೆ ಮತು& ೊಬ_ ಾ%ಾ&ನನು` ಅನ.ಕೃತ ಎಂದು ಪಗ\ಸಾNರುತ&ೆ. ಈ cೆ`ೆಯJ= Hಾಂಕ 24.06.2019 ರ ಪತGದJ=ನ ಮI *ವರdೆಯನು` ಅಂNಕKರುವQHಲ=. ಾರಣ ಕೂಡೇ Hಾಂಕ: H:30-12-2018 ರಂದು [ಾ\ಜ Pೆ:ೆ ಅ.ಾ(ಾ)-41. ದeಣ ವಲಯ, fೆಂಗಳgರು ಕ ೇಯ ಆ.ಾಗಳE ಮI ಸಂ%ೆ]:ೆ %ೇದ :ೋಡಕರ ಅಂhೆ, ಶB3ಕರ ೋಬA, ನಡು*ನಹAT, Uಕ1ಾಯಕನಹAT Pಾಲೂ=RನJ=ರುವ :ೋಾ^:ೆ iೇB ೕ0 ಮI ಒZೆತನದJ=ರುವ :ೋಾಮುಗಳJ= ಾ%ಾ&ನು ಾಡಾNದk ಅ0ೆ ಮತು& ೊಬ_ಯ ಾ%ಾ&ನು ವPಾಸ ೌಲ 2,02,43,675.00 UÀ½UÉ ±ÉÃ.1.5 gÀAvÉ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ. 3,03,655- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 70 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 3 ¥ÀlÄÖ zÀAqÀ gÀÆ.9,10,866-00 ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.12,14,521-00 UÀ½UÉ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, ಕೃ ಉತmನ` ಾರುಕ2ೆ3 ಸ^8, ಹುAMಾರು ಇವರ ೆಸ:ೆ 00 ಮೂಲಕ ಜಾ ಾಡಲು 8AಸಾNೆ. ©. JA ²æäªÁ¸À ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ eÁjPÉÆñÀ) PÀȶ ªÀiÁgÁl E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. UÉ, ಎX.ಆn.*[ೇಾನಂದ%ಾL^, ಾJಕರು, ಮ ಅಂRo 2ೆGೕಡC PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï »A¨sÁUÀ, wªÀÄä£ÀºÀ½î Uಕ1ಾಯಕನಹAT Pಾಲೂ=ಕು. The respondent No.2-appellate authority has merely affirmed the aforesaid order. The petitioner had, however, specifically contended in his response to the notice as well as in the grounds of appeal the reason for imposition of additional tax by the Commercial Tax Department was not because the petitioner had stored excess goods, but for the reason of petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 storing the goods at an undeclared godown. It is not the case of any suppression of quantity of materials. 9. Perusal of the orders at Annexure-N and Annexure- Q do not indicate the respondent-authorities having adverted to this aspect of the matter. According to the petitioner, it has paid the market fee to the entire/whole quantity which was stored in all the three godowns. Since the contentions raised by the petitioner have not been adverted to by the respondents in the impugned orders, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the petition with the direction for reconsideration of the matter. 10. Accordingly, the following; ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure-Q confirming the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-N are quashed. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3 to reconsider the response/reply of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25807 WP No. 3373 of 2022 petitioner issued to the showcase notice afresh and pass appropriate order within an outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31