2025 (10) TMI 322 - HC - GST

Pending proceedings under Rule 96(10) CGST Rules, 2017 lapsed after repeal without a savings clause; petition allowed

HC allowed the petition, holding that pending proceedings based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 lapsed following the rule's repeal by notification ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Hikal Ltd. Versus Union of India and ors. [2025 (9) TMI 806 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. This Court has held that all proceedings except insofar as they relate to transactions past and closed, based upon Rule 96(10) consequent upon its repeal, vide notification dated 8 October 2024, lapse. Normally, this Court is reluctant to entertain any petitions where the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy. However, in this matter, we are satisfied that the issue raised is substantially covered by this Court’s decision in Hikal Ltd. In almost similar circumstances, reliefs of quashing the show cause notices or orders in the original were granted by this Court. Accordingly, it would be futile to relegate the Petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy. The circumstance that the Petitioner has not challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) is beside the point. Even in Hikal Ltd., this Court did not strike down Rule 96(10) but only held that, consequent upon its repeal and in the absence of a savings clause, all pending proceedings would lapse. Therefore, applying the said declaration, which was not a declaration restricted only to the Petitioner in Hikal Ltd. or the Petitioners in connected Petitions, it is believed that the Petitioner has made out a case for the grant of relief in terms of prayer. Petition allowed. The petitioner sought writs under Article 226 (certiorari and mandamus) to quash Show Cause Notice No. 45/CGST dated 02.08.2024 and Order-in-Original No. PLG/CGST/ADC/VRR/72/2024-25 dated 03.02.2025, proceedings premised on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court observed that, in Hikal Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online Bom 3169, it was held that 'all proceedings except insofar as they relate to transactions past and closed, based upon Rule 96(10) consequent upon its repeal, vide notification dated 8 October 2024, lapse.' Applying that reasoning, the petition was allowed and the Rule made absolute to quash the impugned show cause notice and Order-in-Original. The Court rejected the contention that absence of a direct challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) or availability of alternate remedies required refusal, noting the Hikal Ltd. declaration was not limited to those petitioners and that relegation to alternate remedy would be futile. No costs.