- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16188 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. KNAUF CEILING SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 96/4, RAGHU DULARI ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SHRI. SANJEEV D. MOTIYANI - DIRECTOR. (SWAPNIL.KOLTE@TMSL.IN/7643863721) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAV PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIRUDH A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE - 1, FIRST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 LVO- 15 A, NEAR NGV, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047. 3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, KALIDASA MARG, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT-5), SOUTH ZONE, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - II, B BLOCK, RAJENDRANAGAR, 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M.M, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH AND SETTING ASIDE IMPUGNED NOTICE BEARING NO.Va.Te.Sa.Aa/LGSTO-100/2119/2022-23 DATED 11.01.2023 (ANNEXURE-D) ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question Endorsement dated 11.01.2023 [Annexure–D] issued by the second respondent. This Endorsement reads that the petitioner's request for a refund for a sum of Rs.25,07,931/- cannot be processed based on the bank statement and that the petitioner must furnish a copy of the cheque for the said amount. 2. Sri Keshav Pandey, the learned counsel for Sri Anirudh A. Kulkarni who is on record for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not retained a photocopy of the cheque for the sum of Rs.25,07,931/- and that the petitioner has done its best in furnishing the Bank Statement as also the information from the Bank [SBI] that it has not retained the credit data [data relates to the year 2000] because such data is destroyed after the prescribed number of years under its retention policy. Crucially, Sri Keshav Pandey submits that the petitioner's claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 for refund is after earlier proceedings where there is a detailed reference to these payments. 3. Smt. M. M. Jyoti, the learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that this is a peculiar situation. The authorities have not refused the claim for refund, but they are constrained because there is no confirmation that the petitioner has indeed paid the sum of Rs.25,07,931/-. The learned High Court Government Pleader also submits that the second respondent will have to consider all the circumstances before the petitioner is issued with the refund. Sri Gireesh H.C., the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, is present to assist the learned High Court Government Pleader, and when queried, the Officer submits that: [a] the petitioner's bankers [SBI] have also informed the authorities that because of its retention policy, it cannot confirm the details of the payee, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 [b] the authorities cannot, without a confirmation from the Banker on the Scroll number, verify the payment of the aforesaid amount, [c] the authorities will have to approach the State Government and look to all the records to verify whether indeed such payment is made. 4. 4. The circumstances presented are considered in the light of the fact that the petitioner's claim for refund is not under serious dispute and it stands to reason that the authorities must make all due verifications. However, they cannot ignore a stand taken, or an observation made on the petitioner depositing the amount in the earlier proceedings/judicial proceedings. This must also receive due consideration while examining all the details. In the light of the afore, the following :- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19582 WP No. 16188 of 2025 ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the second respondent to decide on the question of refund based on the observations/conclusions in the earlier proceedings and upon verifying all the details that would be available but without insisting upon a copy of the cheque or a confirmation from the Bank. [b] The second respondent is directed accordingly and called upon to communicate the outcome of the petitioner's request for refund within a period of four [4] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK