Case Details: Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 41 Centax 301 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Mayur Punjabi & Anandodaya S Mishra, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Pradip D Bhate & Ms Hetvi H Sancheti, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were members of a trade association who had claimed an IGST refund on the export of goods. Intelligence received from DC Customs, Mundra, alleged breach of Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules. Show cause notices were issued, and orders-in-original were passed invoking Rule 96(10) and denying the refund claims. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the show cause notices and the orders. A prior writ petition concerning the validity of Rule 96(10) had already been disposed of. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the omission of Rule 96(10) by Notification No. 20/2024, dated 08-10-2024, applied to all pending proceedings, as already held in the allied batch of matters. The Court further held that since the petitions were pending without attaining finality on the date of omission, they stood covered by the said legal position. It was also held that in the absence of any saving clause, and with no assistance available from Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, all proceedings under the omitted rule lapsed. Accordingly, the impugned show cause notices and orders-in-original were quashed and set aside, and the refund claims of IGST on exports were held maintainable under Rule 96.
List of Cases Cited
- Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 31 Centax 274 (Guj.) = 2025 (98) G.S.T.L. 241 (Guj.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Hikal Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 34 Centax 249 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 5]
- J.J. Plastalloy (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 37 Centax 241 (Guj.) — Referred [Paras 1, 5, 8]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 20/2024 dated 08-10-2024
