Unconditional omission of a subordinate rule ends proceedings based only on that rule, making later orders unsustainable.

An unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without any saving clause was treated as terminating proceedings founded solely on that rule. The court considered that, absent an express saving provision, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve continuation of the pending action after the rule was removed from the statute book. Because the impugned order was passed after the omission and no replacement provision preserved the proceeding, the order was held unsustainable and set aside as non-est in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an adjudication based on Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could survive after that rule was omitted without a saving clause, and whether the impugned order passed after the omission was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) stood omitted from 08.10.2024. The governing principle applied was that unconditional omission of a rule, unlike a mere amendment or substitution, ordinarily removes it from the statute book and stops further action on pending matters unless the omission is saved by an express saving provision. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was considered in this context, but the omission of a rule without any saving clause was treated as preventing continuation of proceedings founded solely on that rule. The order under challenge had been passed after the omission, and no new rule had replaced the omitted provision to preserve the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained because it was passed after the unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) and there was no saving clause allowing the pending proceeding to continue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the demand order was set aside as non-est in law after the omission of the enabling rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subordinate rule is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, proceedings founded exclusively on that rule cannot continue and any final order passed after the omission is unsustainable.

---