The Gujarat High Court has held that Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would stand omitted prospectively but would not be applicable to pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place. Number of assessees were represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys here.
The Court for this purpose opined that Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax, dated 8 October 2024, which omitted the said Rule, would be applicable to all the pending proceedings/cases.
The assessees were, therefore, held entitled to maintain refund claims for IGST paid for the export of goods as per Rule 96 in accordance with law, as while challenging the vires of Rule 96(10), they had also challenged the SCNs and orders rejecting refunds invoking the said Rule.
The High Court in this regard observed that the ‘omission’ would be included in the interpretation of word ‘repeal’ and hence omission of Rule 96(10) with effect from 8 October 2024, would amount to repeal without any saving clause.
Relying on the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court in Messrs Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. thus held that ‘repeal’ without any saving clause would destroy any proceeding whether or not yet begun or whether pending at the time of enactment of the repealing Act and not already prosecuted to a final judgment so as to create a vested right.