B V L Granites Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of two writ petitions through a common order as both raised an identical question of law. Proceedings had been initiated against the petitioners for recovery of benefits availed under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, on the ground that they had violated the conditions prescribed under Rule 96(10). The proceedings resulted in assessment orders dated 09.01.2025 and 17.06.2025, which were challenged before the High Court.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the first respondent and before the writ petitions were filed, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024 without any clause saving actions initiated under that provision.
The Court noted that the effect of the omission had been considered by the Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited Vs. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court in Addwrap Packaging Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors, and the Uttarakhand High Court in M/s. Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs. Union of India & Ors, dated 30.04.2025 in W.P(MB).No.103 of 2025. According to the supplied judgment, all these High Courts had taken a consistent view that omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause would nullify pending proceedings under the provision.
