M/S NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT LTD., vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 24876 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING
(INDIA) PVT LTD.,
6TH BLOCK, 33, NESS TOWERS,
17TH H ROAD, KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560095.
(REP.BY JIGAR PRAVIN CHOKSEY,
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY)
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE A/W
MS. SAMRUDDHI SHETTY AND
SRI. SIDDHARTH BAVLE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
SOUTH DIVISION-5,
BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE,
6TH FLOOR, A WING,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
KENDRIYA SADAN,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560034.
2.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE,
1ST FLOOR, CR BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA QUASHING THE IMPUGNED REFUND
REJECTION ORDER NO.34(R)/2026-27 DATED
08.05.2026 ISSUED VIDE FORM RFD-06 BEARING
NO. ZD2905260335373 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-
A ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF; DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO GRANT REFUND OF
RS.6,07,00,190/-FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN
TERMS OF SECTION 16 OF THE IGST ACT R/W
SECTION 54 OF THE CGST ACT, ALONG WITH
APPLICABLE INTEREST.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner’s grievance is with the first
respondent’s Order dated 08.05.2026 [ Annexure–A ].
The first respondent by this Order has rejected the
petitioner's request for a refund of Rs.60,700,190/-
under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
2. The first respondent has referred to the
Show Cause Notice issued on the application for
refund observing that the petitioner is registered in
the State of Karnataka, but the Foreign Inward
Remittance Certificate [FIRC] based on which refund
is sought shows the export of services is from the
State of Maharashtra. In fact, this observation is
reiterated later to opine that documents have not
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
been produced to sufficiently establish GSTIN-wise
nexus with the export proceeds as required under the
various propositions.
3. Mr. Ravi Raghavan, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that:
[a] the petitioner's exports are from
Bengaluru.
[b] the remittances are received with its
Bankers in Bengaluru, and only because
the petitioner's registration with the
Director General of Foreign Trade is
based on the petitioner's unit in
Maharashtra, the subject FIRCs have
been issued showing the petitioner's
address in Maharashtra.
[c] each of the FIRCs correspond to the
invoices raised by the petitioner from
Bengaluru and the remittances received
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
by the petitioner's Bankers in Bengaluru
and this salient has been overlooked.
[d] the petitioner, instead of mentioning the
location for export of services as
Bengaluru, had mentioned Haryana.
4. In fact, Mr. Ravi Raghavan relies upon the
decision of this Court in M/s. Nokia Solutions and
Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Principal,
Commissioner of Central Tax, Joint
Commissioner of GST APPEALS-II, Assistant
Commissioner of Central Tax, Additional
1
Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Bengaluru ,
to contend that a decision to refuse refund when
there is some error in FIRC is arbitrary and illegal.
The learned counsel argues that this Court, in
circumstances comparable with the petitioner's case,
has opined that the rejection is arbitrary and illegal.
1
2024 SCC Online Kar 29294
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
5. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, the learned
Standing counsel for the respondents, has been
extended an opportunity to respond in the light of
these submissions, and the learned Standing counsel
cannot dispute that the first respondent, by the
impugned order, has rejected the petitioner's claim
for refund without examining whether the FIRCs
relied upon by the petitioner correspond to the
invoices raised for export from Bengaluru and the
remittances received in Bengaluru.
6. If indeed, the petitioner can demonstrate
reasonably that the invoices relate to exports from
Bengaluru and the remittances are also to its
Bankers in Bengaluru, there cannot be in this
Court's considered view, a reason to reject the
petitioner's request for refund on the ground that the
subject FIRCs mention the petitioner's address
registered by the Director General of Foreign Trade.
The first respondent has not considered these
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
circumstances, and therefore, this Court must
intervene to quash the impugned Order directing the
first respondent to consider and reason why the
petitioner must be refused refund if the subject
FIRCs relate to the exports from Bengaluru and
remittances in Bengaluru without attaching
importance to the address mentioned in the subject
FIRCs but verifying the address mentioned for
registering with the Director General of Foreign
Trade. In the light of the afore, following.
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part.
[B] The first respondent's impugned Order
dated 08.05.2026 [ Annexure – A ] is
quashed restoring the proceedings for
reconsideration.
[C] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to
file a certified copy of this Order with the
first respondent within a week from the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55460
WP No. 24876 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010548672026
date of receipt thereof along with a
reconciliation of the invoice numbers, the
corresponding remittances into its
accounts and the related FIRCs calling
upon the first respondent to consider
such reconciliation in the light of this
Court's observations as afore.
[D] The first respondent shall so consider,
and if found expedient, after extending an
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner.
[E] The first respondent shall consider and
communicate the decision as aforesaid
within eight [8] weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
List No.: 4 Sl No.: 7