### Second refund application within statutory limitation is maintainable despite inadvertent omission in earlier consolidated claim.

The Petitioner, a private limited company, sought a refund of GST amounting to ₹1,10,52,474/- relating to invoices from August 2022.

The Petitioner had previously filed a refund application for the combined tax period of July 2022 to September 2022, which was sanctioned; however, due to inadvertence, specific invoices for August 2022 were omitted from that initial claim.

Consequently, the Petitioner filed a second refund application on August 9, 2024.

The Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) rejected this second application via an order dated April 3, 2025, on the grounds that a second application for an intervening period already covered by a previous claim is not maintainable under CBIC circulars.

The Petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a second refund application for the same tax period is maintainable under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, if the initial application inadvertently omitted certain invoices.

2. Whether technical errors or inadvertent omissions by a taxpayer can justify the outright rejection of a substantive refund claim filed within the statutory limitation period.

The Court applied Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a refund application must be filed within two years from the relevant date but does not explicitly bar multiple applications.

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited v. State of Gujarat, which held that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to technical or arithmetical errors if statutory conditions are met.

The Court applied the principle of judicial uniformity from Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. v. CIT and Rika Global Impex Limited v. Union of India, asserting that views taken by other High Courts on all-India statutes should generally be followed by the department to avoid judicial chaos.

The Court reasoned that Section 54(1) of the CGST Act contains no express embargo or statutory bar against filing more than one refund application for the same period, especially in cases of inadvertent error.

The Court noted that the Respondents conceded the application was filed within the two-year limitation period.

The Court highlighted that the "proper officer" erred by prioritizing restrictive CBIC circulars and technicalities over the substantive right to a refund.

It rejected the officer's attempt to distinguish Shree Renuka Sugars Limited, clarifying that whether an error is "arithmetical" or an "omission of invoices," the principle remains that technicalities should not defeat justice.

The Court emphasized that principles like res judicata do not apply to such refund claims in a way that creates an "illusory bar" against correcting genuine mistakes.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated April 3, 2025; it restored the refund application to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh decision on its merits in accordance with the law, while keeping the Petitioner’s claim for interest open.