Repeal of Rule 96(10) ends pending proceedings absent a savings clause, and alternate remedy need not be insisted on.

Proceedings founded on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could not survive after the rule was repealed, because in the absence of a savings clause the repeal caused the notice and order in original to lapse, except for past and closed transactions. The court also held that the petitioner need not be sent to an alternate remedy where the issue was already covered by binding precedent and further recourse would be futile. The impugned notice and order were therefore liable to be quashed, and relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned show cause notice and order in original founded on Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could survive after repeal of the rule, and whether the petitioner should be relegated to an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was substantially covered by the earlier decision holding that proceedings based on Rule 96(10) lapse upon repeal of the rule in the absence of a savings clause, save in respect of past and closed transactions. The absence of a challenge to constitutional validity did not matter, because the relief granted earlier rested on the effect of repeal and not on striking down the rule. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner to an alternate remedy would have been futile.

Conclusion: The impugned notice and order in original were liable to be quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the writ petition was allowed by making the rule absolute in terms of the prayed reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings founded on a repealed rule lapse in the absence of a savings clause, and an alternate remedy need not be insisted upon where the issue is already covered by binding precedent.

---