Smt P Anuradha Vs State of Karnataka

SMT P ANURADHA PARTNER W/O LATE. I.M.SHETTY RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. M/S SHUDDHA DEVELOPERS, NO.45,19^TH ‘C’ CROSS ROAD, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LOKESHA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX GANDHI NAGARA BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (AUDIT 3.6) DVO-3, BENGALURU-560 027..

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX, LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX-090, JAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:43169 WP No. 12872 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

MR. N. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O D. NARAYANA MURTHY PROPRIETOR AT PARICHATA CONSTRICTION AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, JAYA NAGAR WEST, BENGALURU- 560 011 HAVING BUSINESS AT NO.476, 1^ST BLOCK, 19^TH CROSS,

¶22

RESIDING AT : NO.652/1, 20^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 010.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. JYOTI.M. MARADI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4 VIDE ORDER DATED:10.10.2025, SERVICE TO NOTICE TO R-5 IS H/S)

¶25

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.01.2024 ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY 4^TH RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶30

“ a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ in the like nature and quash the endorsement dated: 17.01.2024 ANNEXURE-Q issued by 4^th Respondent;

¶31

b) Direct the Respondent to refund ` 4,46,024/(Rupees Four Lakh Forty –Six Thousand and Twenty-Four Only) to the petitioner along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum and

¶32

c) Grant any other relief in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43169 WP No. 12872 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶36

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in relation to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the assessment orders dated 22.11.2010 and 04.01.2011 respectively were passed by the respondents. Pursuant to which, recovery proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.41/2013 were initiated by the respondents. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the 1^st respondent – State introduced ‘Karasamadhana Scheme’ dated 18.07.2023, in relation to which, the petitioner filed an application on 27.09.2023 by quoting incorrect TIN number, which was in the assessment order. Thereafter, realizing his mistake, the petitioner submitted representation dated 20.12.2023 seeking correction of the TIN number and refund of the amount paid earlier and to pay the amount under the correct TIN number. Subsequently, the petitioner made fresh payment to the correct TIN number and sought for waiver order, pursuant to which, the 3^rd respondent filed a memo before the Spl.JMFC (Tax) leading to closure of recovery proceedings.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43169 WP No. 12872 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances and when the petitioner sought for refund of the amount earlier paid by him, the 4^th respondent issued an Endorsement at Annexure-Q dated 17.01.2024 refusing to refund the amount paid by the petitioner on the ground that it is paid in a different TIN number. Aggrieved by the impugned Endorsement, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶40

The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the petitioner has made payments twice i.e., once under the wrong TIN number and subsequently, under the correct TIN number. It follows therefrom that though the petitioner had made the first payment under the wrong TIN number, the said payment did not satisfy the requirement under the Scheme and since the petitioner subsequently made payment once again under the correct TIN number, thereby fulfilling the requirement under the aforesaid Scheme, the respondents are liable to refund the amount collected and received by them from the petitioner under the wrong

¶41

TIN number and consequently, the impugned Endorsement deserves to be quashed by directing the respondents to refund the

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:43169 WP No. 12872 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

amount paid by the petitioner together with interest within a stipulated timeframe.

¶46

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶49

(ii) The impugned Endorsement at Annexure-Q dated

¶50

17.01.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent is hereby quashed.

¶51

(iii) The 4^th respondent is hereby directed to refund a sum of

¶52

Rs.4,46,024/- together with interest at 6% back to the petitioner from 29.12.2023 till the date of payment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

Srl.

Smt P Anuradha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt P Anuradha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasha Kabeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Lenovo Global Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Agastegowda Deepak Thirumakudalu Vs the Addl/Joint/Deputy Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

Anunahally Nanjachari Swamy Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri.Anil Kumar M P Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Om Traders Vs Union of India