TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters. 2. Since the similar issue is involved, both the writ petitions are decided by this common order. The lead matter is Special Civil Application No.8472 of 2025. 3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.2. BRIEF FACTS: 4. The petitioner is a member of Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers' Association. It is the case of the petitioner that on specific intelligence received vide letter dated 20.03.2023 from Deputy Commissioner, Customs Mundra, it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Civil Application No.22519 of 2019, vide judgment dated 13th June, 2025, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to maintain refund claims of IGST paid on export of goods. 207. 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 therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings were commenced, prosecuted and brought to a finality before the repeal, no proceeding under the repealed statute can be commenced or continued after the repeal (See Keshvan Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board, Bareilly33, State of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34 and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35). 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her pending at the time of the enactment of the repealing Act, and not already prosecuted to a final 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) :. Ε. 20) :. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus not constituting "transactions past and closed"-are not preserved and will stand lapsed." 7. A combined 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 chall....