HC determined that Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 was...

HC determined that Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, rendering subsequent administrative orders invalid. Referencing SC precedent in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., the court held that rule omission differs from statute amendment, and Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 does not apply. Consequently, the administrative order dated 30th January, 2025 was found procedurally improper, and its enforcement was stayed pending writ petition resolution. The ruling emphasizes that without explicit legislative saving provisions, pending proceedings cannot continue under an omitted rule.