Quick answer
What Rule 96(10) did
The question in dispute
What the Supreme Court decided
There was no saving clause with the omission of Rule 96(10), so the omission applies to all proceedings pending on that date. Relying on the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Canesugar Works (2000), Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not save proceedings when a rule is omitted. The recommendation that the omission be prospective was only advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority. Unlike Section 38A of the Central Excise Act and Section 159A of the Customs Act, the GST law has no general saving provision for omitted rules.
What exporters should do now
| Your situation | Suggested action |
|---|---|
| Refund withheld or rejected only because of Rule 96(10), and the matter is still pending | Write to the proper officer citing the Supreme Court ruling and CBIC's Office Memorandum, and ask for the refund to be processed |
| Show cause notice or demand for refunds already received under the IGST-paid route | Reply relying on the ruling and the CBIC acceptance; request that proceedings be dropped |
| Appeal pending before the appellate authority, GSTAT or a High Court | Bring the ruling and the Office Memorandum on record |
| Matter already closed with a final order and no proceeding pending | Take professional advice; the ruling is about proceedings pending on the date of omission |
Keep track
Frequently Asked Questions
From 8 October 2024, by Notification No. 20/2024–Central Tax.
In Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India (6 August 2026), it held that the omission applies to all proceedings pending on the date of omission, as there was no saving clause.
Yes. The GST Policy Wing accepted it through Office Memorandum F. No. CBIC-20010/21/2026-GST dated 24 August 2026, with the approval of Member (GST).
Where the demand or proceeding was pending on the date of omission and is based only on Rule 96(10), the restriction cannot be enforced. Check the facts of each case with your advisor.
