https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771539 An unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without any saving clause was treated as terminating proceedings founded solely on that rule. The court considered that, absent an express saving provision, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve continuation of the pending action after the rule was removed from the statute book. Because the impugned order was passed after the omission and no replacement provision preserved the proceeding, the order was held unsustainable and set aside as non-est in law. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jun 2025 13:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771539 An unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without any saving clause was treated as terminating proceedings founded solely on that rule. The court considered that, absent an express saving provision, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve continuation of the pending action after the rule was removed from the statute book. Because the impugned order was passed after the omission and no replacement provision preserved the proceeding, the order was held unsustainable and set aside as non-est in law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771539