Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3 April 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Division – III, Thane Rural. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's refund claim of Rs. 1,10,52,474/- for the tax period of August 2022. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner had previously filed a refund application dated 26 April 2024 (ARN- AA270424145558Z) for the period July 2022 to September 2022, which was sanctioned. The Assistant Commissioner held that a second refund application for August 2022, which falls within the already covered quarter, is not maintainable. The High Court observed that the earlier sanction order did not specifically adjudicate the claim for August 2022; it merely sanctioned the refund for the entire quarter without examining the merits for each month. Therefore, the second application is maintainable. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Assistant Commissioner to consider the refund application on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass a fresh order within four weeks. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Indirect Tax - Refund Claim - Maintainability of Second Refund Application - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 54 - The petitioner filed a refund application for August 2022 after a previous application for July-September 2022 was sanctioned. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the second application on the ground that the earlier sanction covered the period. The High Court held that the second application is maintainable because the earlier sanction order did not adjudicate the claim for August 2022 specifically; the refund for the quarter was sanctioned without examining the merits for each month. The court directed the authority to consider the refund application on merits. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second refund application for a specific month (August 2022) is maintainable when a previous refund application for a broader period (July 2022 to September 2022) covering that month had already been sanctioned.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 3 April 2025 is set aside. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to consider the petitioner's refund application for August 2022 on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Refund claim maintainability
- Overlapping tax periods
- Second refund application
- CGST Act
- 2017
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 53
Writ Petition No. 14685 of 2025
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sath
Mr. Ram Heda i/b Priyanka Shukla for Petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad a/w Ms. Priyanka Singh for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Valmet Flow Control Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging rejection of refund claim under CGST Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 3 April 2025 rejecting refund of Rs. 1,10,52,474/- for August 2022 and direction to consider refund application on merits.
Filing Reason
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund application for August 2022 on the ground that a previous refund application for July-September 2022 had been sanctioned, making the second application not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
A previous refund application dated 26 April 2024 for July 2022 to September 2022 was sanctioned by the department.
Issues
Whether a second refund application for a specific month (August 2022) is maintainable when a previous refund application for a broader period (July 2022 to September 2022) covering that month had already been sanctioned.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the earlier sanction order did not adjudicate the claim for August 2022 specifically; the refund for the quarter was sanctioned without examining merits for each month.
Respondents argued that the second application is not maintainable as the period is already covered by the earlier sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
A second refund application for a specific month within a previously covered quarter is maintainable if the earlier sanction order did not specifically adjudicate the claim for that month. The authority must consider the application on its own merits.
Judgment Excerpts
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...
In our opinion, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a refund application for August 2022. The Assistant Commissioner rejected it on 3 April 2025 on the ground that a previous refund application for July-September 2022 had been sanctioned. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and finally disposed of on 22 April 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 54
- Constitution of India: Article 226
