https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790578 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. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:21:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790578 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790578