TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1811
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 96 (10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'CGST Rules') as ultra vires to Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 issued by respondent no. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Gold Bar & Jewellery etc., falling under Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that, accordingly, the petitioner is registered with the GST Department; that, the petitioner is discharging tax liability under CGST Act, 2017, and UKGST Act, 2017 & IGST Act, 2017, as applicable; that, the petitioner is also availing the facility of ITC on inward supplies of goods an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o ensure compliance of certain provisions morefully, enumerated in the said rules. To appreciate his aforesaid contention, rule 96 (10) of the said rules is extracted hereinbelow:- "Rule 96 (10) The persons claiming refund of integrated tax paid on exports of goods or services should not have - (a) received supplies on which the benefit of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Notification No. 48/2017-Central Tax, dated the 18th October, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Subsection (i), vide number GSR 1305(E), dated the 18th October, 2017 except so far it relates to receipt of capital goods by such person against Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme or No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the validity of the said rules and show-cause notice in that regard was issued and served on the petitioner, however, before the final order came into existence, rule 96 (10) of the said rules stood omitted from the statute book. By placing reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. & Anr., v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 536, he would submit that once a rule is omitted, ordinarily as a consequence thereof, the provision is to be obliterated from the statute book as completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute must be considered as if the rule had never existed. 5. By placing reliance on the show-cause notice he would submit that the init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Union of India, reported in 2024 (91) G.S.T.L. 245 (Ker.) and have subsequently been deleted vide Notification No. 20/2024- Central Tax, dated 08.10.2024, therefore, it would be fruitless to again declare Rule 96 (10) of CGST Rule, 2017 as ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act, therefore, the prayer no. 1 does not service any more. 8. The next question that falls for consideration in the instant case is whether respondent no. 2 was at all competent to pass an order subsequent to the omission of the concerned rule. Admittedly, the Rule 96 (10) of CGST Rule, 2017 was omitted from the statute book on 8th October, 2024 and the order impugned was passed on 30th January, 2025. 9. Having regard to the judgment delivered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout the saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the pending proceedings shall not continue but fresh proceedings for the same purpose may be initiated under the new provision. In the instant case, no new rule has been incorporated. On the contrary, rule 96 (10) of CGST Rule, 2017 has itself been omitted from the statute book without any saving clause, at least the parties at this stage have not been able to show anything to the contrary. 10. Having regard thereto, in our view, the said provision of rule 96 (10) of CGST Rule, 2017 being omitted unconditionally, without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings, all actions from the date....