GST / Indirect Tax : Effect of Rule 89 (4B) and/or 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules)

GST / Indirect Tax : Effect of Rule 89 (4B) and/or 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules)

In case of Hikal Ltd v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1563 (Bombay) it has been held that "following the omission or repeal of the impugned Rules, i.e., Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules via Notification dated 08 October 2024, and in the absence of any saving clauses or the benefit of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, all pending proceedings—such as undisposed show cause notices, orders disposing of show cause notices issued after 08 October 2024, or even orders made before 08 October 2024 but not yet finalised due to appeals before the Appellate Authorities or challenges before this Court, thus not constituting “transactions past and closed”—are not preserved and will stand lapsed."

The challenge in most of these Petitions was to Rule 89 (4B) and/or 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules). Upon the omission of these Rules (impugned Rules) vide Notification dated 08 October 2024, notifying The Central Goods and Service Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 (2024 Amendment Rules), the Petitioners had argued that any savings clause does not back such omission, and therefore, all pending proceedings, impugned in these Petitions would stand lapsed.