Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner filed a refund application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act for the tax period August 2022 seeking refund. Earlier, the petitioner had filed another refund application covering the period July 2022 to September 2022, which was sanctioned by the department. However, due to inadvertence, one export invoice pertaining to August 2022 was omitted from the earlier claim. Subsequently, within the statutory limitation period of two years, the petitioner filed a second refund application for the omitted invoice.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that a refund application for the overlapping period had already been filed and sanctioned earlier, and therefore, a second refund application for the intervening period was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Form GST RFD-06, the petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue: Whether a second refund application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act is maintainable for an omitted invoice relating to a tax period already covered by an earlier refund application, when the subsequent application is filed within the prescribed limitation period.

Held That:

The Bombay High Court held that Section 54(1) of the CGST Act does not impose any restriction or bar against filing more than one refund application for the same tax period, particularly where the subsequent claim arises due to inadvertent omission or mistake.

The Court observed that once the refund application is filed within the statutory period of limitation, technical objections cannot defeat a substantive refund claim. It further held that principles analogous to res judicata cannot be imported into refund proceedings under the GST regime.

The Court criticized the hyper-technical approach adopted by the department and emphasized that procedural lapses should not override substantive entitlement. Relying upon the Gujarat High Court judgment in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that genuine refund claims omitted due to inadvertent or arithmetical errors cannot be rejected merely on technical grounds. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 03.04.2025 was quashed and the refund application was restored to the file of the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

Case Name: Valmet Flow Control (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India dated 22.04.2026

To  read the complete  judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1063