Restriction on refund relating to export: repeal of subordinate rules lapses pending refund proceedings and nonfinal orders.

Omission/repeal of subordinate Rules governing refund restrictions for export removes those provisions ab initio and, absent savings clauses, causes pending show cause proceedings and nonfinal orders to lapse; outcome: undisposed show cause notices and orders made after omission, and pre-omission orders not finally concluded on appeal, are not preserved and will stand lapsed. The General Clauses Act protection (Section 6) does not apply to repeal by subordinate rules and cannot be invoked via the parent Acts savings provision; outcome: Section 6 and Section 174(3) do not save the omitted rules or pending proceedings. Clause conferring commencement does not prevent lapse.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 are ultra vires the parent Act or otherwise unconstitutional, null and void?

2. What is the legal effect of the omission/repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) by notification dated 8 October 2024, in the absence of any express savings clause, on pending proceedings and orders initiated under those Rules?

3. Whether any impugned orders or show-cause proceedings constitute "transactions past and closed" and are therefore preserved notwithstanding omission/repeal?

4. Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to and saves pending proceedings consequent to omission/repeal effected by subordinate legislation (Rules) rather than by a Central Act or Regulation?

5. Whether Rules made under Section 164 of the CGST Act can be treated as a "Central Act" for the purposes of attracting Section 6 of the General Clauses Act?

6. Whether Section 174(3) of the CGST Act operates to import the protections of the General Clauses Act (including Section 6) to save pending proceedings arising under omitted/repealed Rules?

7. Whether Clause 1(2) of the 2024 Amendment Rules (stating the Rules come into force on publication) or GST Council minutes operate as a savings provision preserving pending proceedings?

8. Whether Section 166 of the CGST Act (laying-before-Parliament procedure) and the process of laying the Amendment Rules before Parliament operate to save or defer the legal effect of omission/repeal so as to preserve pending proceedings?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Constitutional validity of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10)

Legal framework: Challenge raised to vires of subordinate Rules under the parent statute and to constitutional doctrines (proportionality, equality, arbitrariness).

Precedent treatment: Parties relied on High Court decisions declaring similar provisions void; Court acknowledged precedential arguments but declined to decide the constitutional issue.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the principle that a constitutional court should not decide vires issues unless necessary to afford effective relief. Because the petitions could be disposed of on the ground of omission/repeal without savings, the Court refrained from adjudicating the constitutional validity.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The determination to avoid constitutional adjudication is ratio for this batch of petitions; any remarks on the merits of vires were expressly not decided and are obiter.

Conclusion: The Court did not determine whether the impugned Rules are ultra vires or unconstitutional, reserving that question as unnecessary for disposal given the ruling on omission/repeal without savings.

Issue 2 - Legal effect of omission/repeal without savings clause

Legal framework: Common-law rule of repeal/omission: repeal obliterates provision except as to "transactions past and closed"; statutory exceptions exist by way of savings clauses, notably Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on established authorities explaining that, absent savings, repeal/omission abates pending proceedings not finally concluded; where repeal/omission is substantive (not merely procedural) it affects accrued rights and pending actions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Amendment Rules of 8 October 2024 omitted the two Rules and contained no express savings clause preserving pending proceedings. The omitted provisions affected substantive rights (refund-related safeguards) rather than purely procedural rules; therefore, under the common-law principle, pending proceedings and inchoate rights arising solely under those Rules would lapse.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - omission/repeal of substantive Rules by subordinate legislation without any savings clause results in lapsing of pending proceedings and related orders not falling within "transactions past and closed".

Conclusion: The omission/repeal without savings causes pending show-cause proceedings and non-final orders based exclusively on alleged breach of the omitted Rules to lapse; such proceedings and orders cannot be continued or enforced.

Issue 3 - Transactions past and closed

Legal framework: Concept confines preservation to transactions fully completed and finally adjudicated; pending matters or orders subject to appeal are not "past and closed".

Precedent treatment: Authorities and commentary confirm that only proceedings prosecuted to final judgment in the court of last resort qualify as past and closed for repeal purposes.

Interpretation and reasoning: Respondents did not contend that the impugned show-cause notices/orders were transactions past and closed. Many matters were pending, some had orders passed but were subject to further challenge; accordingly such matters do not qualify for preservation under the past-and-closed exception.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - pending proceedings or orders not finally concluded are not "transactions past and closed" and are liable to lapse upon repeal/omission absent savings.

Conclusion: Impugned show-cause notices and non-final orders are not preserved as transactions past and closed and therefore lapsed upon omission/repeal of the Rules.

Issue 4 - Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act

Legal framework: Section 6 preserves prior operation of repealed enactments where repeal is by "this Act, any Central Act or Regulation", unless a different intention appears.

Precedent treatment: Constitution Bench authority holds Section 6 applies to repeal by Central Act or regulation but not to repeal/omission effected by subordinate legislation (Rules) unless statutory language so provides.

Interpretation and reasoning: The notification of 8 October 2024 effected omission by Rules (subordinate legislation). On a plain reading and on binding precedent, Section 6 does not apply to omission/repeal effected by Rules; consequently pending proceedings are not saved by Section 6.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to omission/repeal brought about solely by subordinate Rules and therefore cannot preserve pending proceedings in such circumstances.

Conclusion: Section 6 is not attracted; pending proceedings under the omitted Rules are not saved by that provision.

Issue 5 - Whether Rules framed under Section 164 of parent Act qualify as "Central Act" for Section 6

Legal framework: Statutory definition distinguishes a "Central Act" (primary legislation) from subordinate Rules; Section 3(7) limits "Central Act" to Acts of Parliament.

Precedent treatment: Decisions attempting to treat delegated Rules as Central Acts have been overruled by authoritative precedents which maintain the distinction.

Interpretation and reasoning: Rules made under Section 164 remain subordinate legislation and cannot be elevated to the status of a Central Act for the purposes of Section 6 absent clear textual basis; the Constitution Bench precedent disallows such elevation.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - subordinate rules, even when made under a Central Act, do not become a "Central Act" for Section 6 purposes.

Conclusion: The contention that the Amendment Rules qualify as a "Central Act" for Section 6 is rejected; Section 6 cannot be invoked on that basis.

Issue 6 - Effect of Section 174(3) of the CGST Act

Legal framework: Section 174(3) states that mention of certain repeals shall not prejudice general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Precedent treatment: Section 174(3) is to be read contextually as preserving applicability of Section 6 insofar as Section 6 is otherwise applicable.

Interpretation and reasoning: Section 174(3) cannot be read to amend or expand Section 6 to cover omissions/repeals effected by Rules; at best it directs courts to consider Section 6 where relevant. Where Section 6 requirements are not fulfilled, Section 174(3) cannot manufacture applicability.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 174(3) does not import Section 6 protections where Section 6 is not in point; it cannot convert omission by Rules into a repeal by a Central Act or Regulation for Section 6 purposes.

Conclusion: Section 174(3) does not save pending proceedings resulting from omission of the impugned Rules.

Issue 7 - Clause 1(2) of the Amendment Rules and GST Council minutes as a savings device

Legal framework: Clause stating Rules come into force on publication determines commencement date; a savings clause must expressly preserve pending proceedings.

Precedent treatment: Mere commencement/prospective language is not a substitute for a savings clause; legislative or regulatory intent to preserve pending matters must be manifest.

Interpretation and reasoning: Clause 1(2) only fixes commencement and does not operate as or contain an express savings provision preserving pending proceedings. GST Council minutes noting prospective intent cannot supply an express statutory saving; therefore Clause 1(2) does not prevent lapsing of pending matters.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - commencement provision without express savings cannot save pending proceedings.

Conclusion: Clause 1(2) and Council minutes do not operate as a savings clause; pending proceedings lapse notwithstanding the stated prospective operation.

Issue 8 - Section 166 (laying before Parliament) and effect on validity/effect of Amendment Rules

Legal framework: Section 166 requires Rules be laid before Parliament and contemplates possible modification/annulment by resolution; laid Rules operate upon promulgation unless annulled.

Precedent treatment: Laying procedure is generally directory; Rules come into force upon making and are subject to subsequent parliamentary action which, if taken, affects future operation without prejudicing validity of past acts done pursuant to the Rules pending annullment.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Amendment Rules came into force on publication; Section 166 does not suspend their effectiveness pending parliamentary laying or approval. The protective limb of Section 166 applies only if Parliament exercises negative resolution power; absent annulment/modification by Parliament, the laying provision does not save pending proceedings affected by omission/repeal.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the laying procedure in Section 166 does not postpone commencement nor supplies a savings clause preserving pending proceedings where the Rule-making instrument itself contains no such saving.

Conclusion: Section 166 does not operate to save the pending proceedings challenged in these petitions.

Remedial Conclusion and Orders

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the above legal conclusions, the Court found the impugned show-cause notices and orders that rested solely on alleged breach of the omitted Rules had no surviving legal basis and thus lapsed; orders refusing refunds that were based on such omitted Rules were quashed and refund applications restored for fresh consideration.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - omission/repeal without savings abates pending non-final proceedings and related orders; affected refund applications must be reconsidered in light of the omission.

Conclusion: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned show-cause notices and non-final orders dependent exclusively on the omitted Rules, directed reconsideration of affected refund applications within a specified time frame, and declared the Rule absolute without costs.

---