Omission of Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules: pending proceedings lapse absent a saving clause; continuation requires a saving clause

Omission of a statutory provision without a saving clause prevents continuation of proceedings under that provision; continuation is permissible only when an omission is accompanied by an express saving clause, otherwise pending proceedings lapse. This position is subject to interpretive application of the General Clauses Act, 1897, notably Section 6, which may affect whether repeal or omission displaces existing proceedings. The note concludes that in the absence of a saving provision, assessments or proceedings founded solely on the omitted provision cannot be sustained and therefore fall away.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a savings clause nullifies or lapses pending proceedings initiated under that provision.

Analysis: The Court considered the legal effect of deleting a statutory provision (Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017) in the absence of any savings clause preserving actions initiated under that provision. The decision applies the principle that continuation of proceedings commenced under a provision that is subsequently omitted is permissible only if the legislative omission is accompanied by an express saving clause; otherwise, the omission operates to terminate pending proceedings, subject to the operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court followed consistent rulings of other High Courts which held that omission of Rule 96(10) without a savings clause nullifies pending proceedings under that rule.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without any savings clause results in the lapsing of pending proceedings initiated under that provision; the impugned assessment orders dated 09.01.2025 and 17.06.2025 are set aside and amounts recovered under those proceedings are liable to be refunded. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

---