Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 926

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Heda i/b Priyanka Shukla
For the Respondent : Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad a/w Ms. Priyanka Singh

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ram Heda i/b Priyanka Shukla
For the Respondents: Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Niyati Mankad a/w Priyanka Singh

No bar under Section 54(1) CGST Act on second refund application for inadvertently omitted invoice within prior quarterly period if filed within two-year limitation; technical rejections invalid, matter remanded for merits.

Headnote:(A) CGST Act, 2017 - Section 54(1) and (5) - Refund of tax - Second refund application for specific invoice in intervening month (August) within prior quarterly tax period (July to September) already subject to sanctioned refund - No statutory bar under Section 54(1) on multiple applications, particularly for inadvertent omission of invoice - Application filed within two-year limitation from relevant date maintainable - Technical grounds relying on circulars cannot defeat substantive right to refund where basic conditions satisfied - Principles of res judicata inapplicable to distinct refund claims - Proper officer must consider binding High Court precedents allowing supplementary claims for errors - Impugned rejection order flawed, quashed and matter remanded for decision on merits with opportunity of hearing. (Paras 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14)

(B) Judicial Precedents - Policy of uniformity - Decisions of another High Court on all-India statute, attaining finality, binding on department unless per incuriam - To be followed for avoiding judicial chaos in tax matters. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed refund claim for specific invoice with foreign remittance received in August tax period, inadvertently omitted from prior refund application for quarterly period July to September, on which refund sanctioned. Second application within two-year limit rejected as not maintainable, being covered by prior quarterly claim.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order quashed; refund application restored to proper officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law after hearing petitioner; all contentions including interest claim kept open.

Issues: Maintainability of second refund application for period subsumed in prior quarterly refund due to inadvertent invoice omission; effect of circulars and precedents on rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 54(1) permits multiple refund applications absent explicit bar, especially for inadvertent errors within limitation; technicalities yield to justice and substantive entitlement; other High Court decisions on similar facts binding on department.

Result: Writ petition allowed; rule made absolute.

Table of Content
1. impugned order rejects second refund claim for august 2022 as covered in prior quarterly application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7)
2. section 54(1) imposes no bar on multiple timely refund applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 8)
3. gujarat hc allows supplementary refunds despite technical or arithmetical errors. (Para 9 , 10)
4. officer must follow binding high court precedents; technicalities cannot defeat refund rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. quash rejection order; restore refund application for merits decision. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

Judgment :

(Per : - G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails an order dated 3 April 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division – III, Thane Rural, Commissionerate. By the impugned order, the petitioner's claim for refund of an amount of Rs. 1,10,52,474/- has been rejected. The impugned rejection is on quite peculiar grounds, inasmuch as the refund application, which was for the period of August 2022, is held to be not maintainable in view of a previous refund application (Refund Application dated 26 April 2024, ARN- AA270424145558Z), being filed by the petitioner for the tax period July 2022 to September 2022 on which orders sanctioning the refund was passed, hence a second refund application for the intervening period i.e., for August 2022 being the period falling between July 2022 to September 2022 would not be maintainable.

3. In other words, the impugned order records that once an application for the period July 2022 to September 2022 praying for refund was made by the petitioner, the petitioner could not have maintained a separate application for a period which, in fact, stood covered insofar by the petitioner’s first application filed for the period July 2022 to September 2022. The relevant observations in that regard rejecting the petitioner’s refund application as made in the impugned order are required to be noted, which read thus:

FORM-GST-RFT-06
ORDER FOR SANCTION/REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REFUND

To.
SGTIN: 27AAICR6406QIZQ
Name Valmet Flow Control Private Limited
Prop No.560, Manpada Road,
Near Bhopar Village, Kalyan,
Thane, Maharashtra, 421204
….
….

ix) I find that this is not the case that the noticee submitted refund application against the Invoice No. 222360022 dated 24.06.2022 beyond the permissible period of two years of the relevant date. In this case the foreign remittance against the said invoice was received in the month of August, 2022 (22.08.2022) and they filed the refund application in the month of August, 2024 (09.08.2024). As such the two year time limit is adhered to in this cane. However, for sanctioning the GST refund online, two-year time limit as prescribed in Section 54 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is not the only condition to be followed, other conditions as laid down in the CBIC Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019,135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020, 197/09/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023 and Instructions No. 03/2022-GST dated 14.06.2022 have also to be followed.

x) It is found that in this case the refund was filed for the month of August, 2022-which was covered in the tax period (July-22 to September, 2022) against which the noticee had already filed refund application vide ARN- AA2704241455582 dated 26.04.2024 in the past and got the refund sanctioned, however, they had allegedly missed the instant invoice and so they have filed the subject ARN.

…..

xv) Conclusively I hold that the noticee is ineligible for filing refund claim against the Invoice No. 222360022 dated 24.06.2022 as refund claim for the relevant tax period was already made earlier as elaborated above.

xvi) In view of above factual matrix and provisions of CBIC circulars and instructions which are binding upon me, I am disposed to reject the Refund application vide ARN-AA270824037989F dated 09.08.2024.

xvii) In view of the above discussion an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 926

No bar under Section 54(1) CGST Act on second refund application for inadvertently omitted invoice within prior quarterly period if filed within two-year limitation; technical rejections invalid, matter remanded for merits.

Cases Referred (1)