Statutory compliance is mandatory in fiscal matters; assessments under wrong sub-sections of Section 108A are jurisdictionally void.

The Petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged notices dated 14.08.2017 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) under Section 108A(12) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, 1976

These notices led to subsequent demand show-cause notices and an endorsement in 2018

The Petitioner contended that the jurisdictional facts required for Section 108A(12)—specifically a refusal to allow inspection—were non-existent

Conversely, the Respondents argued that the action was actually a "random scrutiny" under Section 108A(13), and the reference to Sub-Section (12) in the notice was effectively a minor error

Whether the Revenue Authorities can validly issue a notice under Section 108A(12) of the KMC Act in the absence of a refusal by the assessee to allow entry for inspection.

Whether an action initiated specifically under Section 108A(12) can be legally justified by the Respondents by invoking the powers granted under Section 108A(13).

The Court applied the principle that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed and followed

Section 108A(12) of the KMC Act empowers an officer to perform a "best judgment assessment" only if an occupier refuses entry for inspection

Section 108A(13) provides a separate mechanism for reassessment based on "random scrutiny" where the officer has "reasons to believe" a return is incorrect

The court relied on the doctrine that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in 그 manner or not at all; an authority cannot justify action under a different provision than the one invoked in the notice

The Court reasoned that Sub-Sections (12) and (13) of Section 108A are "distinct provisions" operating in "entirely different situations"

Sub-Section (12) is a penalty-like consequence for obstructing physical inspection, leading to a "best judgment assessment"

In contrast, Sub-Section (13) is a self-contained procedure for reopening "deemed assessments" based on record scrutiny and suspected evasion

The Court found that because the impugned notices explicitly cited Sub-Section (12), the Respondents were required to prove the condition precedent—refusal of entry—was met

Since no such refusal occurred, the invocation of Sub-Section (12) was without jurisdiction

The Court rejected the Respondents' attempt to recharacterize the action under Sub-Section (13), holding that in taxation matters, a defect in the statutory source of power goes to the "root of jurisdiction" and cannot be treated as a mere clerical error

The Writ Petition was allowed

The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the initial notices dated 14.08.2017 [Annexures A and B], and consequently quashed all derivative demand notices and endorsements [Annexures C, D, E, F, and G]