Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| 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 dat
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
