Omission of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies to Pending Refund Proceedings: SC

Goodluck India Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

Omission of Rule 96(10) is also applied for the pending proceeding on the omission: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court considered whether the omission of sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024, applied to pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax paid on goods and services exported from India. The Court noted that Rule 96(10) had been omitted without a saving clause and that the GST Council’s recommendation described its operation as causing unnecessary complications without intended benefit. Relying on Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India, the Court observed that proceedings under an omitted rule can continue only where a provision permits their continuance or a statutory fiction creates such a mechanism. The Court further noted that the recommendation for prospective application was advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority. Since no saving or sunset clause had been introduced when Rule 96(10) was omitted, the Court held that the omission applied to pending proceedings. It found no reason to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeals. The two assessee SLPs, SLP (C) No.24550 of 2025 and SLP(C) No.26411 of 2026, challenging the vires and validity of Rule 96(10), were dismissed as infructuous. The Registry was directed to circulate the order to High Courts for expeditious closure of related proceedings.