![Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules Without Saving Clause Applies to Pending Refund Claims: Supreme Court in M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India [2026 INSC 821]](/assets/images/article-gst.svg)
Quick Answer: Sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. So its omission benefits every refund claim still pending on that date. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Union of India and the Department and upheld the High Court's view that refund of integrated tax paid on exports must be considered without the Rule 96(10) restriction in pending proceedings. The GST Council's advice to make the omission prospective does not bind the rule making authority.
In M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India (2026 INSC 821), the Supreme Court held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by Notification No. 20/2024, without a saving clause, applies to all proceedings pending on the date of omission (paras 3, 7). Applying the Constitution Bench decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment (paras 5–8). The Court dismissed as infructuous two assessee petitions that challenged the vires of Rule 96(10), and directed the order to be circulated to all High Courts so that pending cases on the issue reach closure (paras 1, 9).
Status: Appeals of the Union of India and the Department dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025 and SLP (C) No. 26411 of 2026 dismissed as infructuous (paras 1, 8, 10).
Headnote: Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules and Pending Refund Claims
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Rule 96(10) – Omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024 – Refund of integrated tax paid on goods and services exported – Omission without saving clause – Effect on pending proceedings – GST Council recommendation for prospective omission – Advisory nature – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 6 – Not applicable to omission of a rule – Kolhapur Canesugar Works applied.
Held: (i) Rule 96(10) having been omitted without a saving clause, refund claims pending on the date of omission must be considered without the restriction under that sub-rule (paras 3, 7).
(ii) The effect of deleting a provision is to obliterate it from the statute book as completely as if it had never existed; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the omission of a rule (para 5).
(iii) Proceedings under an omitted rule continue only if there is a provision for their continuance or a legal fiction created by statute; absent either, they cannot be continued (para 6).
(iv) The recommendation of the GST Council that the omission be prospective is advisory and does not bind the rule making authority, as the Additional Solicitor General fairly conceded (paras 4, 7).
(v) The rule was omitted to end "unnecessary complications" once and for all, and that intention cannot be read as keeping those complications alive in pending proceedings (para 7).
(vi) The assessees' challenge to the vires of Rule 96(10) became infructuous, and the High Courts must list pending cases on the issue expeditiously to bring quietus to the litigation (paras 1, 9).
(paras 1–9)
Case Details: M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India (2026 INSC 821)
Final Outcome: Appeals of the Union of India and the Department dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; two assessee SLPs dismissed as infructuous; copy of the order directed to be sent to all High Courts.
Case: M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (with connected matters)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 821
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24550 of 2025 with SLP (C) No. 26411 of 2026, and Civil Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 26336 of 2026 and connected SLPs)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Extraordinary/Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 6 August 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Rules 96(10), 89(4A), 89(4B); Notification No. 20/2024; General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 6; Central Excise Rules, 1944 – Rule 10A (as discussed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works)
Impugned Order(s): Judgment of the High Court holding the omission of Rule 96(10) applicable to every proceeding pending on the date of omission; the order does not name the High Court or give the date (para 1)
Counsel: Sri S. Dwarakanath, Additional Solicitor General, for the Union of India (para 4)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applies to all refund proceedings pending on 08.10.2024 (paras 3, 7).
- The Constitution Bench decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works applies squarely: proceedings under an omitted rule cannot continue without a saving provision or statutory fiction (paras 5–7).
- Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply where a rule, rather than a Central Act or regulation, is omitted (para 5).
- The GST Council's recommendation for prospective omission is only advisory and does not bind the rule making authority (paras 4, 7).
- No saving clause or sunset clause was brought in when Rule 96(10) was omitted, as the ASG fairly accepted (para 7).
- The High Court's judgment was well reasoned and called for no interference (para 8).
- The assessees' challenge to the vires of Rule 96(10) is infructuous in view of this outcome (para 1).
Brief Facts of the Case
The High Court held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 applies to every proceeding pending on the date of its omission. The Union of India and the Department challenged that judgment in a batch of matters before the Supreme Court (para 1).
In two petitions, SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025 and SLP (C) No. 26411 of 2026, the assessees challenged the very vires and validity of Rule 96(10). The High Court had not considered that challenge, since it applied the omission to all pending proceedings (para 1).
Rule 96(10) restricted refund of integrated tax paid on goods and services exported out of India where the person claiming refund had received supplies after availing benefits under the notifications specified in its clauses (a) and (b). It was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024 (para 3).
The assessees contended that, the sub-rule having been omitted without a saving clause, the omission applies to all pending proceedings. The Union of India resisted this, relying on the minutes of the 54th meeting of the GST Council held on 09.09.2024, which recommended that Rule 96(10) be omitted with prospective effect (paras 3–4).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024 benefits assessees in refund proceedings pending on that date (para 3).
- Whether the GST Council's recommendation that the omission be prospective limits its effect on pending proceedings (paras 4, 7).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Union of India's case (para 4): The ASG relied on the minutes of the 54th GST Council meeting, where the Law Committee observed that Rule 96(10) was "leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served" and recommended its omission with prospective effect. He fairly conceded that the recommendation is only advisory and need not be accepted.
Assessees' reliance on Kolhapur Canesugar Works (para 5): Senior Counsel for the respondents relied on Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, where Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which refund was demanded, stood omitted before the final order was passed, and the new rule had no provision to enforce such refund. That decision highlighted the principle that deleting a provision obliterates it from the statute book, and held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to the omission of a rule.
Test for continuing proceedings (para 6): The Constitution Bench held that proceedings initiated under an omitted rule can be continued only if there is a provision for their continuance, or if a statute adopts a legal device creating a fiction for that purpose.
No saving clause for Rule 96(10) (para 7): The Court held that Kolhapur Canesugar Works applies squarely. As the ASG fairly submitted, no saving clause or sunset clause was brought in when Rule 96(10) was omitted. The recommendation of prospective omission is advisory and does not bind the rule making authority.
Purpose of the omission (para 7): The rule was omitted because it led to unnecessary complications. The intention was to end those complications once and for all, not to keep them alive in pending proceedings.
No interference with the High Court (para 8): The Court found the High Court's judgment well reasoned. Noting that many proceedings on the issue are pending before various High Courts, with conflicting decisions, it hoped this judgment would bring them to a close.
Final Outcome and Directions
- SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025 and SLP (C) No. 26411 of 2026, challenging the vires of Rule 96(10), dismissed as infructuous (para 1).
- Leave granted in the other matters, and the appeals of the Union of India and the Department dismissed (paras 2, 10).
- The Registry to send a copy of the order to all High Courts (para 9).
- High Court Registries to place cases on the omission of Rule 96(10) before the roster Benches, after orders of the Chief Justice, expeditiously (para 9).
- Pending applications disposed of (para 11).
Legal Principle Laid Down
When a rule is omitted without any saving clause, it is obliterated from the statute book as if it had never existed, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not save pending proceedings under it. Unless there is a provision for continuance or a statutory fiction, the omitted rule cannot be applied to pending matters. The omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 therefore benefits all refund claims pending on 08.10.2024, and a GST Council recommendation for prospective effect, being advisory, cannot alter this.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (2000) 2 SCC 536 (Constitution Bench) – Applied – omission of a rule without saving clause; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act not applicable to rules. Discussed at paras 5–7.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 5: "The trite principle in common law that the effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision, is to obliterate it from the statute book, as completely as if it had never existed was highlighted by this Court."
Para 6: "It was held by the Constitution Bench that if on omission of a rule, there was a provision for continuance of the proceedings already initiated or if by incorporation of a provision in the statute there was a legal device adopted, creating a fiction by virtue of which proceedings under the omitted rule could be continued; only then proceedings initiated under the omitted rule could be continued."
Para 7: "The Constitution Bench decision applies squarely in the above case."
Para 7: "The recommendation that the omission should be prospective is also advisory in nature and does not bind the rule making authority. The intention to omit the rule without any saving clause was to bring to an end, the unnecessary complications once and for all and the intention cannot be to keep alive the unnecessary complications insofar as the pending proceedings are concerned."
Para 8: "We find no good reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court."
Para 9: "The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all the High Courts."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For exporters: Refund claims of integrated tax on exports pending on 08.10.2024 must be decided without applying the Rule 96(10) restriction (paras 3, 7).
- For GST authorities: The GST Council's recommendation of prospective omission cannot be used to apply Rule 96(10) to pending refund proceedings (paras 4, 7).
- For High Courts: Pending cases on the omission of Rule 96(10) are to be listed expeditiously and decided in line with this order (paras 8–9).
- For assessees challenging vires: A challenge to the validity of Rule 96(10) becomes infructuous where the omission is applied to the pending claim (para 1).
- For tax practitioners: Kolhapur Canesugar Works remains the governing test on the effect of omitting a rule without a saving clause (paras 5–7).
FAQs on Omission of Rule 96(10) CGST Rules
1. What did the Supreme Court hold in M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India?
It held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to all pending proceedings, and dismissed the appeals of the Union of India and the Department (paras 7, 8, 10).
2. What did Rule 96(10) provide?
It restricted refund of integrated tax paid on exports where the claimant had received supplies after availing benefits under the notifications specified in its clauses (a) and (b) (para 3).
3. When was Rule 96(10) omitted?
It was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024, following the recommendation of the 54th GST Council meeting held on 09.09.2024 (paras 3–4).
4. Does the GST Council's recommendation of prospective effect matter?
No. The ASG conceded it is only advisory, and the Court held that it does not bind the rule making authority (paras 4, 7).
5. Why does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act not save pending proceedings?
Following Kolhapur Canesugar Works, Section 6 applies to repeal of a Central Act or regulation and not to the omission of a rule (para 5).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 821, M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India, Rule 96(10) CGST Rules, omission of Rule 96(10), Notification No. 20/2024, IGST refund on exports, pending refund claims, saving clause, Section 6 General Clauses Act, Kolhapur Canesugar Works, GST Council recommendation advisory, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment, GST
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India
Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 821 – M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025) – Download Judgment PDF
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).