The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Kings & Alliance LLP does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on ‘ENTER’, the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy
For years, Indian exporters were caught in a statutory “Catch-22” created by Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The provision barred exporters from taking advantage of the automatic route for Integrated GST (IGST) refunds on exported goods if they had procured raw materials or inputs by availing certain duty-free or concessional notifications (such as Advance Authorization or EPCG schemes).
When the Central Government finally deleted this restriction via Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax on October 8, 2024, a fierce litigation battle erupted across High Courts over its temporal effect. Tax authorities argued that the deletion was prospective, continuing to issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and freezing refunds for past periods. Exporters contended that the omission applied to all ongoing proceedings. In M/s Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India1, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ended this long-running controversy by applying a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation.
The Supreme Court confronted a single, high-stakes question of law:
When a statutory rule is omitted without an explicit saving clause, does that omission automatically inure to the benefit of taxpayers in all pending proceedings as of the date of omission?
Represented by the Additional Solicitor General, the Union of India urged the Court to limit the omission to future transactions. The Revenue relied heavily on the minutes of the 54th GST Council meeting held in September 2024. They highlighted that the Law Committee had explicitly recommended omitting Rule 96(10) “with prospective effect,” arguing that the executive intent was to preserve past liabilities and pending assessments.
Whereas Counsel for Goodluck India and other exporters contended that under settled common-law principles, the “omission” of a rule operates as a complete obliteration. They argued that unlike the repeal of a full statute, the general saving provisions under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, do not apply to subordinate rules. Therefore, without an explicit saving or sunset clause embedded in the notification, omitted Rule 96(10) is treated as if it never existed in the statute book for all unresolved disputes.
The Supreme Court ruled squarely in favour of the exporters, affirming the Gujarat High Court’s position and dismissing the Department’s appeals.
Relying on the landmark Constitution Bench decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India (2000)2, the Court held that the common-law principle of obliteration applies strictly to omitted subordinate rules. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserves accrued liabilities only upon the repeal of a “Central Act or Regulation”; it does not save proceedings under an omitted “rule” unless the rule-making authority explicitly introduces a saving or sunset clause. Because Notification No. 20/2024 contained no saving clause, Rule 96(10) ceased to exist for all pending matters on October 8, 2024.
The Court gave short shrift to the Revenue’s reliance on the 54th GST Council minutes. The Bench observed that recommendations of the GST Council are purely advisory and cannot alter the plain legal effect of a notification issued without a saving clause. Crucially, the Court noted that the Council itself acknowledged Rule 96(10) was “leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served.” The Bench reasoned that the rule-making authority’s intent in omitting the rule without a saving clause was to end those “unnecessary complications” once and for all; not to keep them alive in pending litigation.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Goodluck India is a landmark victory for Indian exporters and a masterclass in statutory interpretation. By affirming that an omitted subordinate rule without a saving clause is obliterated entirely, the Court has provided binding, nationwide relief.
For taxpayers, this ruling permanently dismantles pending SCNs, appeals, and frozen IGST refund claims linked to Rule 96(10). For tax litigators and corporate counsel, it reinforces a vital principle of administrative law: executive recommendations and advisory committee minutes cannot create a statutory saving clause where the law-making authority has chosen not to write one. The Supreme Court directed all High Court Registries to place pending Rule 96(10) matters before their respective benches to bring a swift, formal end to this litigation across the country.
Citation
Expositor(s): Adv. Vatsala pandit
