https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768578 HC held that following the unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 8 October 2024, without any saving clause for pending proceedings, respondent no. 2 lacked competence to pass an order under that rule thereafter. All actions based on the omitted rule had to cease from the date of omission. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, HC declared the order dated 30 January 2025 invalid and directed that its enforcement remain stayed pending disposal of the writ petition, with liberty to mention for listing. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768578 HC held that following the unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 on 8 October 2024, without any saving clause for pending proceedings, respondent no. 2 lacked competence to pass an order under that rule thereafter. All actions based on the omitted rule had to cease from the date of omission. Finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, HC declared the order dated 30 January 2025 invalid and directed that its enforcement remain stayed pending disposal of the writ petition, with liberty to mention for listing. Case-Laws GST Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768578