Mars Exports Vs Union of India & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)
The present writ petitions were disposed of in terms of an earlier judgment dated 20.11.2025 passed in a group of matters, which addressed the effect of Notification No. 20/2024 dated 8th October 2024. By this Notification, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted prospectively without any saving clause. In the earlier judgment, the Court had held that the omission of Rule 96(10) would apply not only prospectively but also to all pending proceedings and cases where final adjudication had not taken place as on 8th October 2024. Accordingly, Rule 96(10) would not apply to pending proceedings before the Court or adjudicating authorities, and petitioners would be entitled to maintain refund claims of IGST paid on export of goods.
The Court also referred to a decision of the Bombay High Court which considered the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) through the same Notification. The Bombay High Court held that since the omission or repeal was not accompanied by any saving clause and did not attract Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the common law principle of repeal would apply. Under this principle, a repealed provision is treated as obliterated as if it had never existed, except for “transactions past and closed.” Pending proceedings, including undisposed show cause notices, orders issued after 8th October 2024, or orders passed before that date but not yet final due to appeals or challenges, would not constitute “transactions past and closed” and would therefore lapse.
