M/s Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Limited filed a case with the Gujarat High Court after their Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund was denied based on an alleged violation of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules. The department had initiated proceedings based on intelligence inputs and issued a show cause notice without adequately considering the petitioner’s response. However, Rule 96(10) was subsequently omitted by Notification No. 20/2024, and past judgments indicated that such omissions affect pending proceedings.
The petitioner argued that since the rule was omitted, the basis for denying the refund was invalid, referencing earlier High Court decisions. The main issue was whether the omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applied to ongoing cases, thereby nullifying previous refund rejections.
Read More: Madras High Court: Extended Limitation not Invokable for interpretational disputes regarding claim of exemption on “Branded vs Unbranded” Goods [Order attached]
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceedings, not just future cases. The Court relied on previous decisions from the Gujarat and Bombay High Courts, which held that the repeal of a rule without a saving clause eliminates ongoing proceedings. It clarified that these cases are not considered "transactions past and closed" and cannot continue after the rule's omission. Consequently, all contested orders and proceedings were quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to have their refund processed within 12 weeks.
Order Date - 12 March 2026
Parties: M/S. ROHAN DYES AND INTERMEDIATES LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Facts -
- M/s Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Limited approached the Gujarat High Court after its IGST refund was denied alleging violation of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules.
- The department initiated proceedings based on intelligence input and issued a show cause notice without properly considering the petitioner’s reply.
- Meanwhile, Rule 96(10) itself was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024, and earlier judgments had already held that such omission impacts pending proceedings.
- The petitioner argued that since the rule no longer exists, the entire basis of denying refund collapses, and the case is covered by earlier High Court rulings.
Issue -
- Whether omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings and invalidates earlier refund rejections?
Order -
- The Court held that omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceedings and not just future cases.
- It relied on earlier Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court rulings holding that repeal without saving clause wipes out ongoing proceedings.
- The Court clarified that such cases are not “transactions past and closed” and therefore cannot survive after omission of the rule.
- Consequently, all impugned orders and proceedings were quashed, and the petitioner was held entitled to refund processing within 12 weeks.
