https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779526 Proceedings founded on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could not survive after the rule was repealed, because in the absence of a savings clause the repeal caused the notice and order in original to lapse, except for past and closed transactions. The court also held that the petitioner need not be sent to an alternate remedy where the issue was already covered by binding precedent and further recourse would be futile. The impugned notice and order were therefore liable to be quashed, and relief was granted. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Oct 2025 08:30:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779526 Proceedings founded on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could not survive after the rule was repealed, because in the absence of a savings clause the repeal caused the notice and order in original to lapse, except for past and closed transactions. The court also held that the petitioner need not be sent to an alternate remedy where the issue was already covered by binding precedent and further recourse would be futile. The impugned notice and order were therefore liable to be quashed, and relief was granted. Case-Laws GST Tue, 30 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779526