2026 (3) TMI 1048 - HC - GST

Repeal Without Saving Clause extinguishes non final proceedings, permitting IGST refund claims and quashing pending notices.

Omission by Notification No.20/2024 of Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B) is treated as a repeal without a saving clause and therefore operates prospectively to ... Entitlement to refund of IGST - repeal without saving clause - constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules by filing the writ petition - Notification No.20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 of Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B) - prospective omission applicable to pending proceedings - lapse of pending proceedings - absence of alternate appellate remedy. Omission of a statutory rule without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings - Effect of Notification No.20/2024 omitting Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules on pending proceedings and on the petitioners' entitlement to IGST refund claims - HELD THAT:- The Court applied the earlier decisions considering Notification No.20/2024 which omitted Rule 96(10) without any saving clause and held that such omission operates prospectively and also applies to pending proceedings which have not attained finality. Consequently, proceedings founded on the omitted rule, including undisposed show-cause notices and orders not constituting 'transactions past and closed', stand lapsed; petitioners whose proceedings were pending are therefore entitled to maintain refund claims for IGST paid on export of goods. The Court also recorded that where the appellate tribunal is not constituted and no alternative remedy exists, orders not finally adjudicated cannot be treated as final. The Court directed processing or restoration and further processing of refund applications within the timeframe prescribed in the impugned precedents. [Paras 7, 9] Notification No.20/2024 omitting Rule 96(10) applies to pending non-final proceedings and results in lapse of proceedings based on the omitted rule; the impugned orders are quashed and the petitioners are entitled to have their refund claims processed (with restoration and processing directed where necessary). Final Conclusion: The writ petitions are allowed: the impugned orders are quashed in view of the omission of Rule 96(10) which applies to pending non-final proceedings, and petitioners are entitled to have their IGST refund claims processed (with the consequent directions for restoration and processing). Issues: Whether the omission/repeal by Notification No.20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 of Rule 96(10) (and Rule 89(4B)) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 applies to pending proceedings and thereby renders impugned show-cause notices and orders liable to be quashed, entitling petitioners to maintain refund claims of IGST.Analysis: The matter was decided following a prior decision rendered on 20.11.2025 which interpreted Notification No.20/2024 as omitting Rule 96(10) prospectively and holding that omission without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings that have not reached finality. The prior reasoning, supported by authority on the legal consequences of repeal without saving clauses, explains that repeal in the absence of a saving clause results in the obliteration of the repealed provision except insofar as it governs transactions that are past and closed; proceedings not finalised at the time of omission therefore do not survive. Applying those conclusions to the present petitions, the impugned show-cause notices and orders that remained pending or not finally adjudicated as on 08.10.2024 are not preserved and stand lapsed; the petitioners are entitled to prosecute refund claims under the remaining operative provisions and to have pending refund applications processed. The order implements reliefs granted in the lead decision, including quashing of impugned actions and directions for processing refunds within a specified time frame.Conclusion: The omission/repeal effected by Notification No.20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 of Rule 96(10) and Rule 89(4B) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 applies to pending proceedings which had not attained finality as on 08.10.2024; the impugned show-cause notices and orders are quashed and set aside, and the petitioners are entitled to maintain and have processed their IGST refund claims. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.