TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Mr Anand Nainawati (5970). For the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3: Mr Utkarsh R Sharma (6157). COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Shashvata U. Shukla waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Since a common issue arises in all the writ petitions, the same are decided by a common judgment and order. 2. The issues emanate from the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 13th June, 2025, passed in Special Civil Application No.22519 of 2019 and allied matters, and also from the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025, has dealt with the issue with regard to Notification No. 20/2024 dated 8th October, 2025, repealing Rule 96(10) of the Rules without any saving clause, and has held as under : "203. In view of above conspectus of law, it appears that the recommendations of the GST Council to omit Rule 96(10) prospectively would apply to all the pending proceedings and cases. However, the contention on behalf of the Revenue that the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the validity of Rule 96(10) cannot be said to be pending proceedings is without any basis because the petitioners have also challenged the show cause notices as well as orders-in-original passed by the respondents by invoking Rule 96(10) for rejecting the refund cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of above findings, as Rule 96(10) would not be applicable to the pending proceedings, in view of omission of Rule 96(10) by Notification No.20/2024 with effect from 8th October, 2024, the question of challenge to the vires and validity of rule 96(10) is not required to be considered at this stage. 208. The petitions therefore succeed in view of applicability of Notification No.20/2024 whereby Rule 96(10) is omitted and the said Notification would be applicable to all the pending proceedings/cases as on 8th October, 2024. The impugned show cause notices and the orders-in-original are therefore, quashed and set aside. The petitioners are therefore, entitled to maintain refund claims for IGST paid for the export of goods as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding under the repealed statute can be commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan Vs State of Bombay, State of Punjab Vs Mohar Singh, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board, Bareilly, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr). XXX XXX XXX 68. In Keshavan Menon Vs State of Bombay (supra), the expression and concept of "transactions past and closed" was explained in the context of repeal of an Act in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 14, which are transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- "11. This statement of law by Craies was referred to with Approval and adopted by the F. C. in J. K. Gas, Plant Manufacturing Co., (Rampur), Ltd. v. Emperor, (1947) F.C.R. 141 at p. 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal judgment so as to create a vested right" (pp. 599-600). 14. The author then proceeds to quote the following passage from Wall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., (125 Ν. Ε. 20) : "It is well settled that if a Statute giving a special remedy is repealed without a saving clause in favour of pending suits all suits must stop where the repeal finds them. If final relief has not been granted before the repeal went into effect, it cannot be after. If a case is appealed, and pending the appeal the law is changed, the appellate Ct. must dispose of the case under the law in force when its decision was rendered. The effect of the repeal is to obliterate the Statute repealed as completely as if it had never been passed, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reading of the aforesaid judgments, which have dealt with Notification No.20/24 dated 8th October, 2024, repealing the provisions of Rules 89(4B) and Rule 96(10), of the Rules exposit that the repealing of the provisions of the Rules without a saving clause renders the provisions redundant, right from the inception. The omission of the Rules would apply to all the proceedings/ cases/ petitions which are pending for adjudication either before this Court or before the respondent-adjudicating authority, or even to orders made before 8th October, 2024 but not yet finalized due to appeals before the Appellate Authorities or challenges before this Court, since the same will not constitute "transactions past and closed", and do not get preserved ....