- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20310 WP No. 7294 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 7294 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. POOJASRI INTERIORS, PROPRIETORY CONCERN, NO.109, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, R R M R EXTENSION, KH ROAD, BENGALURU-560027, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. BHASKAR N, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ROOPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LGSTO-111, BMTC-TTMC, 1ST FLOOR, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS)-3, DVO-3, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20310 WP No. 7294 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2024 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN NO.ACCT(LGSTO)- 111/DRC-07/2024-25, UNDER SECTIONS 73(1) AND 50 OF THE KGST ACT, 2017 AND CGST ACT, 2017 FOR THE TAX PERIODS APRIL 2019 TO MARCH 2020, IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has called in question validity of the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 73(1) of the KGST Act, 2017 and CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April-2019 to March-2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of adjudication under Section 73(9) was passed, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20310 WP No. 7294 of 2026 taking note that the reply of the petitioner on 28.06.2024 and 30.08.2024, stating that their TDS deductor namely State Bank of India had deducted twice without confirmation furnished by the TDS deductor as regards double deduction at their end. It is submitted that liability is crystallized only on the basis of petitioner not having demonstrated deduction of TDS by the deductor on two occasions. 4. It is further submitted that subsequent to the date of the order of adjudication on 07.11.2024, the State Bank of India has issued a certificate explaining such discrepancy. Accordingly, it is submitted that matter may be remitted for reconsideration. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the authority having given sufficient opportunity, was constrained to pass orders as there was no demonstration of deduction of TDS by the deductor two times over. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20310 WP No. 7294 of 2026 6. Perused the order at Annexure-B. It is clear that the authority has recorded a finding that though the petitioner had asserted that State Bank of India has deducted on two occasions, however, there was no confirmation furnished by the Bank. 7. Perused the communication of State Bank of India dated 07.11.2024. It is observed that the additional GTDS of Rs.22,000/- had been paid as a result of technical glitch. In light of the assertion of the petitioner and the contention that the communication of State Bank of India dated 07.11.2024 clarifies the issue regarding double deduction of TDS, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-B and remit the matter back for reconsideration to respondent No.1 with the further observation that the authority may take note of the certificate of State Bank of India dated 07.11.2024 and the petitioner may demonstrate their assertion of double deduction of TDS appropriately. Petitioner to appear - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20310 WP No. 7294 of 2026 before respondent No.1 without further notice on 18.05.2026. All contentions on merits are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR