Bombay High Court Holds No Bar Under Section 54(1) CGST Act on Filing Multiple Refund Applications for Same Tax Period

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed the maintainability of multiple refund applications under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Court quashed an order by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, which had rejected a taxpayer’s second refund application for the same tax period on technical grounds.

The petitioner, Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd., had initially filed a refund application covering the period July 2022 to September 2022. However, due to inadvertence, certain invoices for August 2022 were omitted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second refund application specifically for August 2022. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this second application, reasoning that once a refund application for the broader period had been filed and sanctioned, a subsequent application for an intervening period was not maintainable. The officer relied on various CBIC circulars and instructions, but acknowledged that the second application was within the statutory two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 54(1) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that Section 54(1) does not impose any bar on filing multiple refund applications, particularly where an inadvertent omission has occurred. The petitioner relied on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited v. State of Gujarat, which held that substantive entitlements should not be denied due to technical or procedural lapses, and that supplementary refund claims for omitted amounts are permissible if the statutory conditions are met.

The Bombay High Court, after considering the submissions and the statutory framework, held that the approach of the Assistant Commissioner was legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized that Section 54(1) does not contain any express prohibition against filing more than one refund application for the same period, especially in cases of inadvertent error or omission. The Court further observed that technicalities should not defeat substantive rights, and that the officer’s refusal to consider the second application on its merits was contrary to the object and purpose of the refund provisions.

The Court also noted that the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited had attained finality and was binding on the department, especially in the context of all-India statutes like the CGST Act. The Bombay High Court reiterated the principle that, for the sake of uniformity and certainty in tax law, decisions of other High Courts on identical statutory provisions should ordinarily be followed unless shown to be per incuriam.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 3 April 2025 and restored the petitioner’s refund application for fresh consideration on its merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing. All contentions, including the petitioner’s claim for interest, were expressly kept open.

This decision reinforces the principle that procedural lapses or inadvertent omissions should not deprive taxpayers of substantive statutory entitlements, and clarifies that Section 54(1) CGST Act does not bar multiple refund applications for the same tax period where justified.