Refund claims under GST can be filed again for omitted invoices; no express bar applies to a second application.

A second refund application under Section 54(1) of the CGST Act was treated as maintainable where an invoice had been omitted from an earlier refund claim for the same tax period, provided the later claim was filed within the two-year limitation period. The provision was read as containing no express bar on multiple refund applications, and the omission was treated as an inadvertent lapse rather than a jurisdictional defect. The rejection of the later application on the basis of the earlier sanctioned refund was found inconsistent with the statutory scheme, and res judicata or similar bars were held inapplicable to such refund claims. The matter was restored for fresh decision after hearing the claimant.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second refund application under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was maintainable for an invoice omitted from an earlier refund claim for the same tax period, and whether rejection of the application on the ground of the earlier sanctioned refund was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The refund application was within the two-year limitation under Section 54(1). The provision does not create any express bar against filing more than one refund application, and the omission of a particular invoice from the earlier claim was treated as an inadvertent lapse rather than a jurisdictional defect. The rejection order proceeded on a technical reading that the earlier application for the broader period barred a separate claim for the omitted month, but such a view was held to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The Court further noted that principles of res judicata or analogous bars do not apply to distinct refund applications of this kind. The officer was also expected to follow the cited High Court view permitting refund claims for left-out amounts where substantive entitlement exists.

Conclusion: The rejection of the second refund application was held unsustainable, and the application was restored to the authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

---