TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, 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 (Refund Application dated 26 April 2024, ARN-AA270424145558Z), being filed by the petitioner for the tax period July 2022 to September 2022 on which orders sanctioning the refund was passed, hence a second refund application for the intervening period i.e., for August 2022 being the period falling between July 2022 to September 2022 would not be maintainable. 3. In other words, the impugned order records that once an application for the period July 2022 to September 2022 praying for refund was made by the petitioner, the petitioner could not have maintained a separate application for a period which, in fact, stood covered insofar by the petitioner's first application filed for the period July 2022 to September 2022. The relevant observations in that regard rejecting the petitioner's refund application as made in the impugned order are required to be noted, which read thus: FORM-GST-RFT-06 ORDER FOR SANCTION/REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR REFUND To. SGTIN: 27AAICR6406QIZQ Name Valmet Flo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying for the following substantive reliefs: "i. For the writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the papers and proceedings of the impugned order passed under GST-RFT-06 dated 03-04-2025 by respondent no. 3 to Quash and set aside the impugned order passed under GST-RFT-06 dated 03-04-2025 by Respondent No. 3 Exhibit -J in the interest of justice; ii. For the writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order thereof directing the respondent no. 3 to process and sanction the refund claim amounting to Rs. 1,10,52,474/- along with statutory interest in accordance with section 56 of CGST Act, 2017 in the interest of justice; iii. Saddle the cost on the respondents. iv. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the premises;" 5. At the outset, it is not disputed at the bar that this second refund application filed by the petitioner was within the prescribed limitation of two years as provided for under Section 54(1), being a provision for "refund of tax". Section 54(1), read with the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited Vs. State of Gujarat [2023] 152 taxmann.com, to contend that, in similar circumstances, when the refund application suffered an arithmetical error, hence, a complete claim could not be made, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court entertained a challenge and allowed the petition by permitting the petitioners therein to file refund application for the left-out claim of Rs.10.20 crore. The relevant observations in that regard are required to be noted which reads thus: "14. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, it is settled law that the benefit which otherwise a person is entitled to once the substantive conditions are satisfied cannot be denied due to a technical error or lacunae in the electronic system. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner has no option but to upload the supplementary application under "any other" category for the refund of the left out amount, which was due to an arithmetical error committed by the employee of the petitioner. We are of the view that the said claim of the petitioner for refund of the left out amount of Rs. 10,20,28,733 cannot be reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e defeated the petitioner's right to maintain the second refund application for a decision on its merits. In matters of such application which are on specific refund application, for distinct periods, there is no question of reading any principles of res judicata or principles analogous thereto. This would defeat the object of the provisions, by creating an illusory bar. In any event, a too technical view cannot be taken to defeat the requirement of justice. 12. Further in our opinion, the proper officer ought to have followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugar Limited (supra). The said decision, was required to be taken into consideration in the appropriate perspective, coupled with the clear reading of the substantive provisions, namely Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. In such context, we may also observe that, in a recent decision of this Court in Rika Global Impex Limited Vs. Union of India and Others Writ Petition No.2310 of 2024, in which the Court referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (supra) this Court had clearly observed that the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Limited (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favourable to the assessee appealed more to the Division Bench. Observations to the same effect are to be found in CIT v. Chimanlal J. Dalal & Co. [1965] 57 ITR 285 (Bom). In the latter case the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Kantilal Nathuchand [1964] 53 ITR 420 was doubted but still followed for the sake of uniformity. We are aware that the practice is not uniform among the High Courts, but nevertheless we are of opinion that it is desirable one. Unless the judgment of another High Court dealing with an identical or comparable provision can be regarded as per in-curium, it should ordinarily be followed. ... ... ... " 25. In our opinion, the wisdom of the above observations of Chief Justice Chagla, as followed in Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. (supra), certainly needs to guide the department in the present times, more particularly considering the scores of matters being filed on the same issue before different High Courts, once the issue has attained finality, qua the department in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, similar contended issues ought not to be agitated by the department before the other High Courts. The situation further worsens....