Case Details: Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 145 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bhargav D. Karia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Amal Paresh Dave, Paresh M. Dave & Parth P. Rachchh, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Pradip D. Bhate & Utkarsh R. Sharma, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a GST-registered exporter of medicaments, exported various consignments on payment of IGST and received a refund sanctioned under Section 16 of CGST Act. The Department issued a show cause notice alleging that the petitioner had procured inputs under the Advance Authorisation scheme for use in manufacturing final products and that IGST should not have been paid on exports, contending that the refund was contrary to Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules. An original demand was raised on this basis, which was subsequently reduced on appeal, applying Rule 96(10) prospectively. While the appeal was pending, Notification No. 20/2024, Dated 8-10-2024 was issued, omitting Rule 96(10). The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, since Notification No. 20/2024, Dated 8-10-2024 omitted Rule 96(10) while proceedings were pending, the demand under Rule 96(10) could not survive. The Court observed that both the impugned original order and the appellate order were unsustainable. Applying statutory interpretation, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s case was fully covered by the Notification, and the refund demand could not be maintained. The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings of the original and appellate orders were set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Addwrap Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 31 Centax 274 (Guj.) = 2025 (98) G.S.T.L. 241 (Guj.) — Followed [Paras 3.5, 4.1, 5.1]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 20/2024 – Central Tax, dated 8-10-2024
