Court sets hearing for challenge to GST Rule 96(10), grants interim relief. Parties to submit arguments.

The court scheduled all related matters challenging Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules for a hearing on 30.09.2021. The petitioner sought to strike down the rule, declare entitlement to pay Integrated Tax on exports, claim refunds, and quash initiated proceedings. An interim relief was granted to restrain coercive actions until the next hearing. Both parties were directed to submit written arguments, and the Central Government Standing Counsel was instructed to prepare a comprehensive reply. The court aimed to promptly address the pending issues and ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's claims.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, entitlement to pay Integrated Tax on exported goods, quashing of proceedings initiated against the petitioner, interim relief sought, pending matters from 2019, urgency in addressing the issues.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the court seeking to challenge Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules. The prayers included issuing a writ of mandamus to strike down the rule as ultra vires certain sections and articles of the Constitution. Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ to declare entitlement to pay Integrated Tax on exported goods and claim refunds, as well as to quash proceedings initiated against them via specific summons. An interim relief was also sought to restrain coercive recovery actions until the next hearing date.

The court heard the arguments presented by the petitioner's advocates, Mr. Paresh Dave and Mr. Amal Dave, who highlighted similar issues pending since 2019. An urgency was noted, leading to the decision to schedule all related matters for a hearing on 30.09.2021. Both sides were directed to exchange written submissions and relevant authorities to be relied upon.

Furthermore, the presence of the Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Priyank Lodha, was acknowledged, and he was instructed to prepare the reply in advance to facilitate a comprehensive discussion during the upcoming hearing. Direct service and service by speed post were permitted for efficient communication in the case. The court's proactive approach aimed to address the pending matters promptly and ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the issues raised by the petitioner.

---