Omission of GST Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) Lapses Pending Proceedings: Bombay HC

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, in...