Sopariwala India LLP Vs Union of India Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court considered the writ petition in light of its earlier judgment dated 20.11.2025 passed in a group of matters concerning Notification No. 20/2024 dated 8th October 2024. At the outset, both parties agreed that the present petition could be disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment.
In the earlier decision, the Court had examined the effect of Notification No. 20/2024, which omitted Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules prospectively and without any saving clause. The Coordinate Bench had held that although the omission operated prospectively, it would also apply to all pending proceedings where final adjudication had not taken place as of 8th October 2024. It was clarified that petitions challenging show-cause notices and orders-in-original invoking Rule 96(10) constituted pending proceedings. Accordingly, the omission of Rule 96(10) would apply to such pending cases, and no further proceedings were required to be carried forward. The petitioners were held entitled to maintain refund claims for IGST paid on export of goods under Rule 96 of the CGST Rules.
The Court further referred to the Bombay High Court decision in Hikal Limited & Ors., which addressed the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without a saving clause. The Bombay High Court held that in the absence of a saving clause or the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the common law principle regarding repeal would apply. Under this principle, except for “transactions past and closed,” the repealed provision is treated as obliterated as if it had never existed. Pending proceedings, unless finally concluded, would not survive the repeal. The Bombay High Court held that undisposed show-cause notices, orders passed after 8th October 2024, or even orders passed before that date but not yet finalized due to appeals or challenges would not constitute “transactions past and closed” and would stand lapsed.
