Hikal Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court rules on Hikal Limited petitions, holding that omission of CGST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) without savings clauses lapses pending proceedings. Court clarifies Section 6 of General Clauses Act and Section 174(3) of CGST Act do not protect ongoing cases.
The Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited vs Union of India addressed petitions challenging the validity and effect of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10), which were omitted through the Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024. The Court examined multiple issues, including constitutional validity, statutory interpretation of the General Clauses Act, and the implications for pending proceedings.
First Issue – Constitutional Validity of the Impugned Rules:
The Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited vs Union of India addressed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of CGST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10). While acknowledging the arguments that these rules were ultra vires the CGST Act and unconstitutional, the Court refrained from deciding the matter. Citing established principles, the Court emphasized that constitutional validity should only be examined if necessary to provide effective relief to the petitioner. Since the petitions could succeed on other grounds—specifically, the omission of the impugned rules without savings clauses—the Court found it unnecessary to rule on their constitutionality. However, the Court noted prior judgments, including the Kerala High Court striking down Rule 96(10), which could have binding effects across India under Article 226, though this was not determinative in the present case.
