Case Law Details
Krishna Sai Granites (India) Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Taxes and Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of two writ petitions involving a common issue relating to recovery of GST refunds granted on exports for the period November 2018 to September 2022. The petitioner challenged orders dated 21.12.2023 passed by the assessing authority, which sought recovery of refund amounts on the ground that such refunds were barred under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10), contending that it was ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
During the pendency of the petitions, Rule 96(10) was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The petitioner argued that since the rule was omitted without any saving clause, proceedings initiated under it would not survive. The respondents contended that the omission would not affect the impugned orders already passed.
The Court rejected the respondents’ contention and held that the impugned orders were entirely based on Rule 96(10). With the omission of the rule, the orders lost their legal basis and could not be sustained. The Court relied on its earlier decisions taking a similar view.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.12.2023. All pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed, with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
As both these Writ Petitions raise an identical question of law, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. In W.P.No.8499 of 2024, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as the order in original, dated 21.12.2023, demanding recovery of refund of Rs.11,28,14,285/- sanctioned in relation to the exports for the period November, 2018 to September, 2022.
4. In W.P.No.8500 of 2024, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as the order in original dated, 21.12.2023, demanding recovery of refund of Rs.32,91,60,878/- sanctioned in relation to exports carried out for the period November, 2018 to September, 2022.
5. In both these cases, the assessing authority, who passed the orders in original had held that the refund of tax made to the petitioner was barred by Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules and that such refunds made, wrongfully, required to be recovered.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders, had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petitions contending that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provision of Section 16 of the IGST Act apart from being violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
7. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules came to be omitted w.e.f. 08.10.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said Rule 96(10) has been omitted without a saving clause. The learned counsel would submit that in such circumstances all the proceedings initiated under such a rule would have to be set aside as they would not survive the omission of Rule 96(10).
8.Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules would not affect the orders in original which are impugned in the present cases.
9. This contention would have to be rejected. The impugned proceedings had been issued on the basis of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. By virtue of its omission, with effect from 08.10.2024, the impugned orders do not have any basis and have to be set aside.
10. A similar view had already been taken in various judgments of this Court including the judgment, dated 19.02.2026, in W.P.Nos.17221 and 17222 of 2025.
111. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders, dated 21.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent in both the cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
