https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792450 Where an IGST refund recovery proceeding rested solely on alleged breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, the omission of that rule without any saving clause meant the adjudication could not continue. The Court applied the principle that omission of a rule does not attract Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the same way as repeal of a Central Act or regulation, so pending proceedings founded exclusively on the omitted rule lapse. The recovery order was therefore unsustainable and was quashed, with consequential relief granted. en-us Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792450 Where an IGST refund recovery proceeding rested solely on alleged breach of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, the omission of that rule without any saving clause meant the adjudication could not continue. The Court applied the principle that omission of a rule does not attract Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the same way as repeal of a Central Act or regulation, so pending proceedings founded exclusively on the omitted rule lapse. The recovery order was therefore unsustainable and was quashed, with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws GST Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792450