The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed a property tax demand of ₹6.7 crore issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) concerning its Research and Development Centre in Whitefield, Bengaluru..Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav granted interim relief to HUL, observing that BBMP had failed to explain the basis for raising a differential tax demand or for rejecting the company’s self-assessment filings."In light of the same, there would be stay of the demand at Annexure-B, till the next date of hearing," the Court ordered, referring to the latest demand notice dated March 15, 2025..HUL’s tax dispute with BBMP spans over a decade and centres around multiple surveys and reassessments of its Whitefield property. The conflict began in 2013 when BBMP alleged underassessment of property tax based on a 2012 survey and demanded ₹4.02 crore for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13. Following representations, this demand was revised to ₹1.30 crore, which HUL claims to have paid in January 2014. However, BBMP allegedly failed to issue an official receipt despite repeated requests.In 2017, BBMP conducted a total station survey (TSS), followed by further surveys in 2018, 2022 and 2024. Each survey produced varying measurements of the built-up area, leading to inconsistent tax demands. In January 2019, BBMP issued a fresh notice seeking ₹2.75 crore in arrears, which HUL challenged through administrative appeals.HUL alleged that despite assurances during appeal proceedings that it would be allowed to inspect survey findings and file objections, the Joint Commissioner passed an ex-parte order in July 2024 without notice. A subsequent demand notice for ₹2.81 crore was followed by the latest notice of ₹6.7 crore in March 2025, prompting HUL to approach the High Court.HUL has alleged that BBMP acted arbitrarily, violated principles of natural justice and ignored statutory limitations on reassessment. It also claims that the authorities suppressed the appeal order, depriving it of the opportunity to avail benefits under a one-time settlement (OTS) scheme..Senior Advocate Promod Nair, representing HUL, argued that the tax demand was legally unsustainable. He pointed out that for the period 2008-09 to 2012-13, BBMP had already raised a separate demand (Annexure-E), which was fully satisfied by HUL in January 2014, as evidenced by its communication (Annexure-F).For subsequent years, Nair submitted that HUL had consistently discharged its property tax liabilities through the self-assessment scheme (SAS). He provided the Court with a detailed table of annual payments made from 2013-14 to 2024-25..The Court directed BBMP to specifically respond to:The justification for the differential tax.The rejection of HUL’s self-assessment declarations.The prior satisfaction of dues for 2008-09 to 2012-13.The matter has been posted for hearing in the second week of June 2025..Nair was briefed by Advocate Ahaan Mohan from Aretha Legal. BBMP was represented by Advocate Pawan Kumar. .[Read Order]
