Omission of a fiscal rule without a saving clause applies to pending refund proceedings and defeats action under the omitted provision.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without a saving clause was held to apply to pending refund-related proceedings that had not attained finality. Proceedings still pending before the Court or the adjudicating authority, and orders not yet final, were treated as continuing matters rather than closed transactions. On that basis, action taken solely under the omitted rule could not survive, the impugned action was quashed, and the refund claims were directed to be processed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by Notification No. 20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 applied to pending refund-related proceedings and entitled the petitioners to have the impugned action quashed and the refund claims processed.

Analysis: The petitions were disposed of in terms of the earlier common judgment which had held that the omission of Rule 96(10), made without a saving clause, operated prospectively but applied to all pending proceedings and cases that had not attained finality. Proceedings that were still pending before the Court or the adjudicating authority, or orders that had not become final, were treated as not constituting transactions past and closed. On that basis, the impugned action based on Rule 96(10) could not survive, and the refund claims were required to be maintained and processed in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applied to the pending proceedings, the impugned action was quashed, and the petitioners were entitled to refund processing in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal provision is omitted without a saving clause, the omission applies to pending proceedings that have not attained finality, and action taken solely under the omitted provision cannot survive.

---