Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has upheld a uniform property tax for all five-star hotels within the erstwhile BBMP limits, now under Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), ruling that such hotels form a distinct category and can be taxed uniformly regardless of their location.A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf, in a July 1 order, dismissed an appeal filed by hotel owner MR Kodandaram, who challenged the levy of a uniform property tax on five-star hotels across Bengaluru. Kodandaram owns Gokula Grand Hotel and Spa, a five-star property at Gokula Extension on HMT Road near BEL Circle. A single-judge bench had dismissed his petition on March 26, 2026. The original writ petition was filed in 2015.The petitioner argued that even among five-star hotels, property tax should vary based on location, contending that a uniform levy irrespective of locality was arbitrary.Rejecting the argument, the division bench held that five-star hotels constitute a separate and uniform class for taxation purposes. “Five-star hotels constitute a distinct and uniform class and, therefore, imposing a uniform tax irrespective of location does not violate any provision of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, or the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules, 2009,” the court observed.The bench noted that tax classifications must satisfy the equality test under Article 14 of the Constitution. While classifications cannot be arbitrary, they are valid if based on an intelligible differentia. Since all five-star hotels belong to the same distinct category, applying a common tax slab to them does not violate Article 14, the judges held. Finding no merit in the appeal, the court upheld the uniform tax.Limited relief on penaltyOn the issue of penalty, however, the bench granted limited relief to the petitioner. It noted that Sections 112A(5), (6) and (7) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act allow an assessee to submit a representation to the commissioner within 30 days against the penalty. Since the petitioner had been pursuing the case in the high court and had enjoyed interim protection during the proceedings, the bench extended the time by three weeks from July 1 to file his representation.The court also directed the commissioner to decide on the representation in accordance with the law, after considering all relevant facts and giving the petitioner the opportunity to be heard. It restrained the authorities from taking any coercive steps to recover the penalty until the commissioner passes an order.
