2025:BHC-AS:37897-DB

JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Amol

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025

Hikal Limited
3rd and 6th Floor, The Great Eastern
Chamber, Sector – 11, Plot No. 28, CBD
Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400614. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Ministry of Law & Justice,
Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan,
Annex Building, 2nd Floor, New
Marine Line, Mumbai – 400 020.
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs
Ministry of Finance, Through its
Chairman, Having its office at North
Block New Delhi – 110 001.
3. Office of the Commissioner,
CGST and Central Excise, 1st Floor,
C.G.O., Complex, CBD Belapur, Navi
Mumbai – 400 614.
Digitally
signed by
4. Joint Commissioner (Adjudication)
AMOL
AMOL
PREMNATH 1st Floor, C.G.O. Complex, CBD
PREMNATH JADHAV
JADHAV Date: Belapur Navi Mumbai – 400 614
2025.09.11
[Link]
+0530 5. The Assistant Commissioner
CGST & C. Ex. Division – I Belapur
Commissionerate 1st Floor, C.G.O.
Complex, CBD Belapur Navi
Mumbai – 400 614
6. The Superintendent … Respondents
CGST & C. Ex. Range – V, Division – I,
Belapur Commssionerate 1st Floor,

Page 1 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

C.G.O. Complex, CBD Belapur Navi

Mumbai – 400 614.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 465 OF 2021

Yasho Industries Limited, is a Public

Limited Company having its office at
101-102, Peninsula Heights, C.D., Wing
A, CD Barfiwala Road, Juhu Lane, Ganga
Vihar, Andheri West, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400058.
Through Shri Yayesh Jhaveri who is the
Director of Petitioner Company, having
his address at 1 Ashirwad, 21, Hatkesh
Society, JVPD Scheme Road-6, Vileparle
(West), Mumbai, Maharashtra 400056. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue), No.137,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs,
through Chairman, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi-110 001
3. The GST Council
through the Secretary, 5th Floor
Tower, II, Jeevan Bharati Building,
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi – 100 001.
4. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Kolkata Zonal Unit-8, Ho Chi-Minh
Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. … Respondents

Page 2 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2828 OF 2021

Prashi Pharma Private Limited

Having office at Surya House 503, 5th
Floor, Shri Golvalkar Guruji Marg, RD.
No.7, near Vidyavihar Station, Vidyavihar
(E) – 400 077, through Its Authorized
Representative Shri Sunil K. Desai … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. Goods and Service Tax Council
GST Council Secretariat, 5th Floor
Tower II, Jeevan Bharati Building,
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi – 100 001.
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (erstwhile CBEC)
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi –
110001.
4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
8, Ho Chi-Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700
071.
5. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary Mantralaya,
Madam Kama Road, Nariman Point,
Hutatma Raj Guru Chowk, Mumbai
400021.
6. Commissioner of Central Goods and
Service Tax, Mumbai
Commissionerate - Mumbai East
Division, Division-IX, Ravne-IV
(Jurisdictional Office).

Page 3 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

7. Commissioner of State Goods and

Service Tax, Mumbai
State-Maharashtra Zone, Mumbai
North-West, Division-Ghatkopar,
Charge-Kurla-702. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3691 OF 2021

M/s. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.

Having his office at Alkem House,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,
Mumbai 400013. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Goods and Service Tax Council
through its Additional Secretary, 5th
Floor Tower II, Jeevan Bharati
Building, Janpath Road, Connaught
Place, New Delhi – 100 001.
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (erstwhile CBEC)
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi –
110001.
4. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Zonal Unit 8, Ho Chi-Minh Sarani,
Kolkata – 700 071.
5. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary Mantralaya,
Madam Kama Road, Nariman Point,
Hutatma Raj Guru Chowk, Mumbai
400021.

Page 4 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

6. Commissioner of Central Goods and

Service Tax, Mumbai, Mumbai
Central GST Bhavan, 4th Floor, Opp.
Churchgate Railway Station,
Maharshikarve Road, Mumbai-
400020.
7. Commissioner of State Goods and
Service Tax, Mumbai
7 Nasbit Road, Mazgaon, Tadwadi,
Maharani Pratap Chowk, Mumbai-
400 010. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 405 OF 2021

Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt Ltd.

is a Private Limited Company having its
factory & Registered office at Plot No D-
4, D- 4/1, Five Star Industrial area, Kagal
Dist. Kolhapur- 416236, through
Annasaheb Laxman Patil who is the
whole time Director of the Petitioner
Company, having his address at Mauli
Niwas, A/P- Halasawade, Tal- Karvir, Dist.
Kolhapur, 416 202 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue), No.137,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs, through Chairman,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110
001.
3. The GST Council
through the Secretary, 5th Floor Tower

Page 5 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

II, Jeevan Bharti Building Janpath

Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi
1100 001
4. The Assistant Director
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Kolkata Zonal Unit 8, Ho Chi-Minh
Sarani Kolkata-700 071 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2044 OF 2022

1. Nevatia Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered office at 9th Floor, 904,
Lodha Supremus, Dr. E. Moses Road,
Worli, Mumbai-400018
2. Nikhil Nevatia,
Director & Shareholder of Nevatia
Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., having his
address at 1st Floor, Pitale Prasad, 85,
Worli Sea face, Mumbai - 400 030. … Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The GST Council,
Through the Joint Secretary, GST
Council Secretariat, Tower – II, Floor,
Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Janpath,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi – 110
001
3. Central Board of Indirect Tax &
Customs
Through Member (GST), North Block,
New Delhi

Page 6 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

4. Directorate General of GST

Intelligence
Through the Senior Intelligence
Officer Mumbai Zonal Unit, 3rd Floor,
NTC House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3163 OF 2021

Augmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
registered office at 3rd Floor, Units
B1/B2/B3, Bullion House, 115,
Tambakatta Lane, Pydhonie, Mumbai -
400 003 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India

Through: Secretary (Finance &
Revenue) Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue North Block,
New Delhi-110 001
2. The Directorate General of GST
Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit
having its office at NTC House 3
Floor, 15, N. M. Road, Ballard Estate
Mumbai 400 001.
3. The State of Maharashtra
Through Government Pleader, High
Court Bombay
4. The Goods and Services Tax Council
Through: Additional Secretary, 5th
Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti
Building Janpath Road, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110 001
5. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs,

Page 7 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Through: Chairman Department of

Revenue North Block, New Delhi 110
001
6. The Commissioner of Goods and
Services Tax,
Mumbai Central having his office at
4th Floor, GST Building, 115, M. K.
Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 20 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 8737 OF 2022

1. Bharat Wire Ropes Limited

Through its director Murarilal
Ramsukh Mittal Age: 64 years, Male,
Occupation- Business, A-701, 7th
Floor, Trade World Building, Kamala
Mills, SB Marg, Lower Parel (West),
Mumbai - 400013
2. Murarilal Ramsukh Mittal
Age: 64 years, Male, Occupation-
Business, A-701, 7th Floor, Trade
World Building, Kamala Mills, SB
Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai -
400013 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through The Ld. Secretary,
Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue) No.137,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance North Block, New Delhi- 110
001

Page 8 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

3. Principal Additional Director General,

Directorate General of GST
Intelligence,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, 15, 3rd Floor,
N.T.C. Tower, N. M. Road, Ballard
Estate, Mumbai-400001
4. Deputy Director,
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 15,
3rd Floor, N.T.C. Tower, N. M. Road,
Ballard Estate. Mumbai-400001
5. Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 15,
3rd Floor, N.T.C. Tower, N. M. Road,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001
6. Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
DEEC Monitoring Cell, New Custom
House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-
400001 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1773 OF 2024

Kairav Chemofarbe Industries Limited,

a company incorporated under the
Companies Act 1956, and having its
registered office at 502, Filix, LBS Marg
Opposite Asian Paints, Bhandup (West),
Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 078 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

Page 9 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

2. Joint Director,
Directorate General of Goods &
Services Tax Intelligence Third Floor,
NTC House, 15, N. M. Road Ballard
Estate, Mumbai 400001
3. Additional Commissioner of Central
Tax,
Division II, Range 1, Central Tax
Commissionerate, Navi Mumbai … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2022
WITH
CHAMBER ORDER (CHOL) NO. 286 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4640 OF 2022

Kalp Overseas
504, CTS 26, Bldg. No.3, Chaitanya CHS
Ltd., Goregaon (West) Mumbai-400104,
Maharashtra Through Mr. Abhik Jain … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through its Additional Chief
Secretary (Finance) Secretaries
Cabin, Main building, Mantralaya,
Madam Kama Rd., Hutatma Rajguru
Chowk, Mumbai - 400032
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001
4. The Goods & Services Tax Council

Page 10 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Through The Secretary 5th Floor,

Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building,
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi - 110001
5. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West
1st Floor, Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya, C D
Burfiwala Marg, Andheri (W),
MUMBAI-400058.
6. The Deputy Commissioner of CGST
Div.-IX, Mumbai West 1st Floor,
Takshashila Building Samant Estate,
Goregaon (East) Mumbai - 400063 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11740 OF 2025

Camlin Fine Sciences Limited

Plot No. D-2/3, MIDC Tarapur
Boisar, Dist: Palghar, Maharashtra - 401
506. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue.
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs, 1
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, Through its Chairman,
Having his office at North Block, New
Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals - III), … Respondents
CGST & Central Excise Floor, Piramal
Chambers Lalbaug Lower Parel
Mumbai - 400012
The Additional Commissioner,
CGST & Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate,

Page 11 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Having his office at 5% Floor, Plot No.

C-24, Sector-E, Central GST Bhavan,
Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2745 OF 2025

1. DD Cotton Pvt. Ltd.

A company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at
9th Floor, A 908, Dalamal Tower,
Free Press Journal Marg,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

2. Mr. Mayank Arun Sekhsaria,

Director of DD Cotton Pvt. Ltd.
having residence at Sekhsaria House,
28, Babulnath Road, Babulnath
Mandir Babulnath, Grant Road,
Mumbai- 07
… Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. The GST Council,
Through the Joint Secretary, GST
Council Secretariat, Tower - II, 5th
Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124,
Janpath, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi 110 001
3. Principal Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, 13th Floor, Air India
Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021

Page 12 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

4. Additional Commissioner, CGST &

Central Excise, 13th Floor, Air India
Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-
400 021 … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 15183 OF 2024

Tridev Resins India Private Limited

Through its Director Vinay Vinod Ojha
Sex: Male, Age 37 Years Office at Plot No
136/E-1, 2nd Phase, GIDC Vapi, Valsad,
Gujarat, 396195 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through The Ld. Secretary, Ministry
of Finance (Department of Revenue)
No.137, North Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110
001.
3. Deputy Director,
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit 3rd
Floor, NTC House, 15 NM Road
Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400001
4. Intelligence Officer, Group A
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit 1st
Floor, NTC House, 15 N M Road
Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400001
5. Superintendent/ Appraiser/ Senior
Intelligence Officer
O/o Pr. Additional Director General,
Directorate General of GST

Page 13 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, 1st

Floor, NTC House, 15 NM Road
Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400001
6. Additional Director General,
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence, Mumbai Zone Unit NTC
House 1st Floor, 15 N M Road
Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400001 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2097 OF 2025

Astec LifeSciences Limited

having its registered office at 3rd Floor,
Godrej One, Pirojshanagar, Eastern
Express Highway, Vikhroli (East),
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400079
… Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through the Secretary, Department of
Revenue Ministry of Finance, having
his office at 128-A, North Block, New
Delhi-110 001.
2. Principal Additional Director General,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, 3rd Floor, N.T.C.
House, 15, N. M. Road, Ballard
Estate, Mumbai - 400001
3. Additional Director, DGGI,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, 3rd Floor, N.T.C.
House, 15, N.M. Road, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400001
4. Additional Commissioner of Central
Tax,
CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai
Commissionerate 16th Floor, Satara
Plaza Palm Beach Road, Sector 19 -

Page 14 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra

400703
5. Joint Commissioner of Central
Tax, CGST & Central Excise, Navi
Mumbai Commissionerate 16th Floor,
Satara Plaza Palm Beach Road, Sector
19 - D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra - 400703 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3522 OF 2024

Vidhi Specialty Food Ingredients Limited

Having its registered office at E27, 28,
29, 5th Commerce Centre, Plot-78,
Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya Marg,
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400034. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India

Through Secretary Department of
Revenue Ministry of Finance North
Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Additional Commissioner
CGST & Central Excise Mumbai
Central Commissionerate having his
office at 4th Floor, GST Bhavan, 115
Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai-
400020.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Division-
X, CGST & Central Excise Mumbai
Central Commissionerate
having his office at 8th Floor, Piramal
Chambers, Jijibhoy Lane, Lalbaug
Parel, Mumbai - 400012 … Respondents

Page 15 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3013 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31922 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3013 OF 2023

1. Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd.

a Public Limited Company having its
address at Amli Piparia Industrial
Estate, Silvasa, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli - 396230.
2. Shri. Mukesh Deopura
Chief Financial Officer of Sarla
Performance Fibers Ltd. having its
address at Amli Piparia Industrial
Estate, Silvasa, Dadra and Nagar
Haveli - 396230, … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The GST Council,
Through the Joint Secretary, GST
Council Secretariat, Tower - II, 5th
Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124,
Janpath, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi 110 001
3. Central Board of Indirect Tax &
Customs
Through Member (GST), North Block,
New Delhi
4. Joint Commissioner of CGST,
CGST and Central Excise, Daman
Commissionerate G.S.T. Bhavan, RCP
Compound, Vapi - 396191
5. Assistant Commissioner of CGST, … Respondents

Page 16 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

CGST and Central Excise, Daman

Commissionerate G.S.T. Bhavan, RCP
Compound, Vapi - 396191

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2025

Jindal Drugs Private Limited

a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
registered office at Office at 12A,
Bakhtawar, 12th Floor, 229 Nariman
Point, Mumbai-400021 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India,

Through Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance North
Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Principal Commissioner/
Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise
Mumbai South Commissionerate
having his office at 13th Floor Air
India Building, Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021
3. The Additional Commissioner,
CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai
South Commissionerate having his
office at 13th Floor Air India
Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-
400021 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 39729 OF 2022

1. Supriya Lifescience Limited, … Petitioners

engaged in manufacture and sale of
pharmaceuticals and chemicals, is a

Page 17 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Limited Liability Company having its

office at 207/208, Udyog Bhavan,
Sonawala Road, Goregaon (East)
Mumbai 400063, India, through Shri
Deepak Ganpat Chavan who is the
Manager - Business Coordinator in
the Petitioner Company, having his
address at 5/362, M.G. Road, Sane
Guruji Nagar, Goregaon West,
Mumbai - 400 104

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary Ministry of Finance
(Department of Revenue), No.137,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs, through Chairman,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110
001.
3. The GST Council
through the Secretary, 5th Floor
Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Building
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi 1100 001
4. Senior Intelligence Officer/
Superintendent/ Appraiser
Additional Director General, DDGI,
MZU, 1st Floor, NTC house, 15, N.M.
Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001
5. The Assistant Director
Directorate of Intelligence Revenue
Kolkata Zonal Unit 8, Ho Chi- Minh
Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071
6. The Deputy Director … Respondents
Directorate General of GST
Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit N.T.C

Page 18 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

House, III Floor, 15, N. M. Road,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001.

ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 2023

M/s Ashish Life Science Private Limited,

A Private Limited Company bearing
GSTN 27AABCB4093N1ZC,
having its registered address at J-137,
MIDC Tarapur, Boisar, Dist. - Palghar,
Maharashtra-401501 Through Shri
Ashish Shah, Chief Financial Officer in
the Petitioner Company, residing at
C/502, Bhoomi Enclave, Mahavir Nagar,
Kandivali (West) Mumbai 400067 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue No. 137, North Block, New
Delhi - 110 001
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs,
Through Chairman, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Goods and Services Tax Council,
Through Secretary, 5th Floor Tower
II, Jeevan Bharti Building Janpath
Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-
1100 001
4. Superintendent of Customs, IGST (R)
(X),

Page 19 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Office of the Commissioner of

Customs (Export), Air Cargo
Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East),
Mumbai - 400 099
5. Additional Commissioner, Office of
the Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate, 5th Floor, GST
Bhavan, C-24, Sector - 'E', BKC,
Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051
6. Superintendent, Office of the
Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise,
Palghar, 5th floor, GST Bhavan, C-24,
Sector – 'E', BKC, Bandra East -
Mumbai – 400051 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2025

Unify Texturisers Private Limited

A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, and having its
registered office at, 139/140, Madhuban
Dam Road, Karad Village, UT of Dadra
Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu-
396230 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India

Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110 001
2. The GST Council,
through the Secretary, 5th Floor,
Tower-II, Jeevan Bharti Building,
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi-110001

Page 20 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs
Departmentof Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
4. The Commissioner,
CGST & CX Daman Commissionerate,
G.S.T. Bhavan, RCP Compound Vapi-
396191
5. The Joint Commissioner,
CGST &CX Daman Commissionerate,
G.S.T. Bhavan, RCP Compound
Vapi- 396191 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7229 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2024

Enaltec Labs Private Limited,

a Pharmaceutical Company having its
registered place of business at 1701,17th
Floor, Kesar Solitare, Plot No.5, Sector –
19, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai – 400 705,
Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra through its
Authorised Representative … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue, No.
137, North Block, New Delhi – 110
001.
2. The GST Council
through the Secretary 5th Floor, Tower
II, Jeevan Bharati Building Janpath
Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi –

Page 21 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

110 001.
3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs
through the Chairman, North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
4. The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner
(Anti-Evasion) CGST, Central Excise
Belapur Commissionerate, 1st Floor,
CGO Complex, Sector – 10, CBD
Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 100 614.
5. The Assistant Commissioner
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
8, Ho-Chi Min Sarani, Kolkata – 700
071. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12927 OF 2022

1. Electrolead (Pune) Pvt. Ltd.

a Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
address at Gat No. 146, Mahalunge,
Chakan Industrial Area, Chakan
Talegaon Road, Pune - 410501. … Petitioner
2. Mr. Abhijit Mehta,
Director & Shareholder of Electrolead
(Pune) Pvt. Ltd. having his address at
Gat No. 146, Mahalunge, Chakan
Industrial Area, Chakan Talegaon
Road, Pune - 410501.

Versus

1. Union of India,
through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The GST Council,
Through the Joint Secretary, GST

Page 22 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Council Secretariat, Tower - II, 5th

Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124,
Janpath, Connaught Circus, New
Delhi-110 001
3. Central Board of Indirect Tax &
Customs
Through Member (GST), North Block,
New Delhi
4. The Directorate General of GST
Intelligence Through the Senior
Intelligence Officer, Mumbai Zonal
Unit, 3rd Floor,
NTC House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai
5. The Deputy Commissioner of State
Tax (E-706), Pune 503,
GST Bhavan, Near Golf Club, Airport
Road, Yerwada, Pune-411 006 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 739 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11291 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 739 OF 2025

Phoenix Innovative Healthcare

Manufacturers Pvt Ltd
A company duly registered under
Companies Act, 1956 having its
registered office at EL-209 Shil Mahape
Road, Electronic Zone, MIDC Mahape,
Navi Mumbai … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Dept of Revenue, Aaykhar
Bhawan Marine Lines, Mumbai-400

Page 23 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

020.
2. Commissioner of CGST
Belapur Commissionerate
1st Floor, CGO Complex, CDB Belapur,
Navi Mumbai-400614
3. Dy Commissioner of CGST,
Division IV, Belapur 5th Floor, CGO
Complex, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-
400614 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 674 OF 2024

Fiberweb India Limited

Having office at: S. No. 92-93/8, Near
Dalwada Sub Station, 100 Feet Coastal
Highway, Kadaiya – 396210
Through its Authorized Signatory … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through The Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi -
110001
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs Ministry of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi-110 001
3. The Goods & Services Tax Council
Through The Secretary
5th Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti
Building, Janpath Road, Connaught
Place, New Delhi-110001
4. The Superintendent of CGST And
Central Excise,
Range-III, Division IV, 3rd Floor, GST
Bhavan, RCP Compound Daman
Road, Vapi- 396 191

Page 24 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

5. The Assistant Commissioner

CGST & C. Ex, Div IV, Daman 3rd
Floor, GST Bhavan, RCP Compound,
Daman Road, Vapi - 396 191. … Respondent.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2025

Unimax Chemicals Private Limited

Plot No.E-116, MIDC Tarapur, Boisar-
401506 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
(Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Law and Justice, Department of Legal
Affairs) Branch Secretariat, Aaykar
Bhavan Annexe, 2nd floor, New
Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020
2. Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise,
Palghar Commissionerate
5th Floor, Central GST Bhavan, Plot
No.C-24, Sector-E, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -
400 051
3. Additional Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise Palghar
Commissionerate,
5th Floor, Central GST Bhavan, Plot
No.C-24, Sector-E, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -
400 051 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1614 OF 2025

1. Keva Fragrances Private Limited

Page 25 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

a Company incorporated under the

provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 and having its registered office
at Devkaran Mansion, 36, Mangaldas
Road, Mumbai - 400 002
2. Mr. Kedar Ramesh Vaze
having office at Keva Fragrances Pvt.
Ltd. Devkaran Mansion, 36,
Mangaldas Road, Mumbai 400 002
... Petitioners

Versus

1. Union of India,
2. The Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise,
Raigad, Plot No.1, Sector 17,
Khandeshwar, Navi Mumbai 410206
3. The Additional Commissioner of
Central GST Commissionerate,
Raigad, Plot No.1, Sector 17,
Khandeshwar, Navi Mumbai 410206 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4658 OF 2025

M/s. Eastern Petroleum Private Limited,

Unit No. 1, Ground Floor, Riddhi Siddhi
Corporate Park, V N Purav Marg, Sion
Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai - 400
071 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
(Through the Secretary), Ministry of
Law and Justice, INDIA Department
of Legal Affairs, Branch Secretariat,
Aaykar Bhavan Annexe, 2nd floor,
New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020

Page 26 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

2. Commissioner of CGST & Central

Excise,
Navi Mumbai, 16th Floor, Sec - 19D,
Palm Beach Road, Vashi, Navi
Mumbai- 400 705.
3. Additional Commissioner of CGST
Navi Mumbai, 16th Floor,
Sector - 19D, Palm Beach Road, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai- 400 705. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5816 OF 2025

Axiom Cordages Limited

a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
registered office at Plot No. 114B & 120C
Mahagaon Road, Betegaon Boisar-
401501 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India,

Through Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance North
Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Commissioner
CGST & Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate having his office at
5th Floor Central GST Bhawan, Plot
No. C-24, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051
3. The Additional Commissioner,
CGST & Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate having his office at
5th Floor Central GST Bhawan, Plot
No. C-24, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051

Page 27 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2025

Responsive Industries Limited

a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
registered office at Gut No. 120
Mahagaon Road, Betegaon Boisar-
401501 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India,

Through Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Commissioner
CGST & Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate having his office at
5th Floor Central GST Bhawan, Plot
No. C-24, 1 Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051
3. The Additional Commissioner, CGST
& Central Excise, Palghar
Commissionerate having his office at
5th Floor Central GST Bhawan, Plot
No. C-24, 1 Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai -400051. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 15698 OF 2025

Hikal Limited … Petitioner

A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, Having its
Registered office at 717/718 Maker
Chamber V, Nariman Point, Mumbai-
400021 and office at 3rd and 6th Floor,
Great Eastern Chamber, Sector-11 Plot-

Page 28 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

28, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai Thane,

Maharashtra - 400614

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi
2. The GST Council,
Through the Secretary, 5th Floor,
Tower-II Jeevan Bharti Building
Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi-110001
3. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs,
Through the Chairman, Department
of Revenue North Block, New Delhi-
110001
4. The Additional Director,
Having his office at Director General
of GST Intelligence Office of the
Principal Additional Director General,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, Ground Floor
Laxmi Insurance Building Sir P.M.
Road Fort, Mumbai-400001
5. The Commissioner, CGST & CX
Thane Commissionerate, Having his
office at 3rd and 5th Floor, Accel
House, Road No. 22 1 Wagle
Industrial Estate Thane-400604
6. Joint Commissioner of CGST &CX
Thane Commissionerate, Having his
office at Accel House, Road No. 22,
MIDC, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane
(West)-400604 … Respondents

Page 29 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11356 OF 2025

Mylan Laboratories Limited F-4 & F-12

Malegaon MIDC,
Sinnar, N ashik-422113 … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India, Through the22

22 Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, having its office
at 128-A, North Block, New Delhi,
110 00.
2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs
Ministry of Finance,
Through its Chairman,
Having its office at North Block
New Delhi - 110 001

3. Office of the Commissioner,

CGST and Central Excise,
Nashik, Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34
NH, Jaistha & Vaishak, CIDCO
Nashik- 422008

4. Additional Commissioner
CGST and Central Excise,
Nashik, Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34
NH, Jaistha & Vaishak, CIDCO
Nashik- 422008

5. Anti Evasion Wing

(Preventive Section), Headquarters23
23
Nashik, Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34
NH, Jaistha & Vaishak, CIDCO
Nashik- 422008

Page 30 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

6. The Superintendent, CGST & C. Ex.

Sinner Range, Division - II,
Nashik, Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34
NH, Jaistha & Vaishak, CIDCO
Nashik- 422008
… Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11355 OF 2025

Ajit Ganpat Dhuri, Aged 49 years,

Deputy General Manager of
Mylan Laboratories Limited
Residing at Flat No. 3, 2nd Floor,
Morya Apartment Plot No. 15
Survey No. 909/1/15
Opposite Police Quarters,
Wasan Nagar, Cidco Colony,
Nashik, Maharashtra-422009 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, having its office
at 128-A, North Block,
New Delhi, 110001.

2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes

and Customs Ministry of Finance,
Through its Chairman, Having its
office at North Block New Delhi-110
001
3. The Commissioner, CGST and
Central Excise, Nashik, Plot No. 155,
Sector- P-34 NH, Jaistha & Vaishak,

Page 31 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

CIDCO
Nashik- 422008 1
4. Additional Commissioner CGST and
Central Excise, Nashik, Plot No. 155,
Sector- P-34 NH, Jaistha & Vaishak,
CIDCO Nashik-422008

5. Anti Evasion Wing

(Preventive Section), Headquarters
Nashik, Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34
NH, Jaistha & Vaishak, CIDCO
Nashik- 422008

6. The Superintendent, CGST & C. Ex.

Sinner Range, Division – II, Nashik,
Plot No. 155, Sector- P-34 NH, Jaistha
& Vaishak, CIDCO Nashik-422008 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4625 OF 2025

Mancare Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Having office at Plot N0. 60, Dhovali
Village, Vasai Municipal Industrial Estate.
Vasai West, Palghar Maharashtra —
401207 Authorised Representative
Shri ________________ … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
Through the Secretary Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi -110
001
2. State of Maharashtra
Through its Additional Chief
Secretary (Finance) Secretaries

Page 32 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Cabin, Main building, Mantralaya,

Kama Rd, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai-400032
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes &
Customs
Ministry of Finance, Finance, North
Block, New Delhi -110 001
4. The Goods & Services Tax Council
Through The Secretary 5th Floor,
Tower II Jeevan Bharti Building
Janpath Road, Connaught Place New
Delhi -- 110001
5. Deputy Commissioner of Customs,
Office of Commissioner of Customs
(Export) Air Cargo Complex, Andheri
(E)-Mumbai-400099
6. Commissioner of Customs
Nhava Sheva, JNCH, Mumbai
7. Commissioner of Customs (Export),
Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri
East, Mumbai – 400099
8. Superintendent/Appraiser/
Intelligence officer,
1st Floor, Central GST Bhavan, C-24,
E-Block Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12170 OF 2023

M/s Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, … Petitioner

A Company incorporated under
Companies Act 1956, having its
registered address at A/22/23/3, MIDC,
Mahad, Raigad, Mumbai, Maharashtra —
402301 Through Shri Aniket Hirpara
Having its registered office at A/22/23/3,

Page 33 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

MIDC, Mahad, Raigad, Mumbai,

Maharashtra

Versus

1. Union of India, Through its Secretary,

Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, North
Block, New Delhi -110001

2. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs,
Through its Chairman, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi — 110001
3. Commissioner of Customs, Import II,
Group II-A, New Custom House,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra
— 400 001

4. Additional Director General,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Kolkata Zonal Unit, 8, Ho Chi Minh
Sarani, Kolkata - 700071 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11079 OF 2025

Privi Specialty Chemicals Limited

(formerly known as Fairchem Specialty
Limited) 1st Floor, Privi House, A-71,
TTC, Thane Belapur Road, Koperkharane,
Navi Mumbai, Thane, Maharashtra - 400
710. … Petitioner

Versus

Page 34 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue, 128-
A, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Through its
Chairman, 17 17 Having his office at
North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

3. The Joint Commissioner (AE),

CGST & Central Excise, Belapur
Having his office at 1st Floor, CGO
Complex CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai
- 400 614
4. The Joint / Additional Commissioner,
Division IV of CGST & Central Excise,
Belapur Commissionerate, Having his
office at 1st Floor, CGO Complex
CBD-Belapur, Navi Mumbai - 400
614. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11002 OF 2025

M/s Catapharma Chemicals Private

Limited,
having its registered address at A-115 to
A-119, A-122, A-124 to 126, STICE,
Musalgaon, Sinnar, Nashik - 422 112. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central

Excise, Nashik Commissionerate
Plot No. 155, Sector-9-34, NH,
Jaishtha & Vaishakh, CIDCO, Nashik-
422 008.
2. The Commissioner of State Tax,

Page 35 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Maharashtra State.
8th Floor, GST Bhavan, Nesbit Road,
Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400 010.
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs (erstwhile Central Board of
Excise & Customs) Ministry of
Finance North Block New Delhi 110
001.
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Government Pleader,
PWD Building, High Court (O. S.)
Mumbai 400
5. The Union of India
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, North
Block, New Delhi - 110 001. … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12169 OF 2023

Undercarriage and Tractor Parts Pvt Ltd.,

A Private Limited Company having its
factory & Registered office at Plot No D-
4, D-4/1, Five Star Industrial area, Kagal
Dist. Kolhapur – 416236
Through Shri Annasaheb Laxman Patil,
Whole Time Director of the Petitioner
Company, having his address at Mauli
Niwas, A/P- Halasawade, Tal-Karvir, Dist.
Kolhapur, 416 202 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
through Secretary Ministry of
Finance (Department of Revenue),
No.137, North Block, New Delhi —
110 001
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and

Page 36 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Customs, through Chairman,

Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi —
110 001

3. Office of the Commissioner of Central

GST, Kolhapur, through Additional
Commissioner, CGST Kolhapur
Comm’te, Vasant Plaza Commercial
Complex, 4th and 5th Floor, C.S. No.
1079/2, K.H., Rajaram Road, Bagal
Chowk, Kolhapur — 416 001 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11357 OF 2025

Blue Jet Healthcare Limited

(formerly known as Blue Circle Oranics
Private Limited),
Plot No. B-12, C4, E-2, MIDC Chemical
Zone Kalyan Badlapur Road, Ambernath
West, Thane, Maharashtra - 421 501. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue, 128-
A, North Block, New Delhi-110001

2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and

Customs, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Through its
Chairman, Having his office at North
Block, New Delhi - 110 001.

3. The Joint / Additional Commissioner, … Respondents

CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural
Commissionerate, Having his office at
4th Floor, GST Bhawan, Plot No. 24-

Page 37 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

C, Sector E, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11358 OF 2025

Uniray Medical LLP

Plot No. C-97, TTC Industrial Area
Turbhe Mahape Road, Turbhe MIDC
Thane - 400 705 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue, 128-
A, North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Central Board of Indirect Tax and
Customs, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Through its
Chairman, Having his office at North
Block New Delhi 1100 001

3. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

CGST & Central Excise, Division-Ill,
Belapur Commissionerate, Having his
office at 1st Floor, CGO Complex,
CBD- Belpaur, Navi Mumbai - 400614

4. The Deputy Commissioner (AE),

CGST & Central Excise, Division-III,
Belapur Commissionerate, Having his
office at 1st Floor, CGO Complex,
CBD- Belpaur, Navi Mumbai - 400614 … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 18847 OF 2024

Aeroflex Industries Limited … Petitioner

Page 38 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

A Company registered under

Companies Act, 1956
having its registered office at Survey
No.41 & 42/13, 14, 18, Village:
Chalgaon, Near MIDC, Taloja, Panvel,
District-Raigad Maharashtra -410 208

Versus

1. Union of India,
(Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Branch
Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan Annexe,
2nd floor, New Marine Lines Mumbai
400020.
2. The Commissioner of CGST
Raigad, Plot No.1, Sector-17
Khandeshwar, Panvel, Navi Mumbai -
410 206
3. The Additional Commissioner (A.E),
CGST & [Link]., Raigad, Plot No.1
Sector-17, Khandeshwar Panvel, Navi
Mumbai - 410 206 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10972 OF 2025

M/s. KT Exports (India) Private Limited,

12, 1202, Kohinoor Square, Wing B, NC
Kelkar Marg, Opp. Shiv Sena Bhavan,
Dadar West, Mumbai - 400 028 … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India,
(Through the Secretary), Ministry of
Law and Justice, Department of Legal
Affairs, Branch Secretariat, Aaykar
Bhavan Annexe, 2nd floor, New

Page 39 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020

2. Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise,
Mumbai Central Commissionerate,
Piramal Chambers, Jiibhoy Lane
Parel, Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400 012.

3. Asistant Commissioner of CGST

Div- VI,
Mumbai Central Commissionerate,
Piramal Chambers, Jiibhoy Lane
Parel, Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400 012 … Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10974 OF 2025

M/s. Medico Remedies Limited,

Plot No. 7, 8 & 9, Dewan N Sons Udyog
Nagar, Lokmanya Nagar, Palghar-West,
Palghar, Maharashtra - 401 404. … Petitioner

Versus

1. Union of India
(Through the Secretary),
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan
Annexe, 2nd floor, New Marine Lines,
Mumbai-400020.
2. Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise
Palghar Commissionerate Plot No. C-
24, Sector - E, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.
3. Additional Commissioner of CGST & … Respondents.
Central Excise;
5th Floor, Plot No. C-24, Sector-E,
Central GST Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla

Page 40 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400

051.
______________________________________________________

W. P. No. 78 / 2025

Mr. V. Shridharan, Senior advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.

Dhananjay Sethuraj and Ms. Vidhi Jain i/by Sriram Sridharan
for the Petitioner

Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra a/w Mr. Rupesh

Dubey i/by A. A. Ansari, for the Respondent No. 1

Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta
Yadav, Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Mr. Rupesh Dubey for
Respondents No. 2 to 6

W.P. No. 465 / 2021

Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms. Meenal

Songire a/w Ms. Arya More for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh

Mishra, for the Respondent
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P. for the Respondents

[Link]. 2828/2021

Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Dhanishtha Kawale i/by UBR

Legal Advocates for the Petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Ms. Maya

Majumdar, Mr. Rupesh Dubey and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and
Mr. S. D. Deshpande for the Respondents

[Link]. 3691 / 2021

Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Dhanishtha Kawale i/by UBR

Page 41 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Legal Advocates for the Petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Saket R. Ketkar a/w Ms. Sangeeta

Yadav, Ms. Maya Majumdar, Mr. Rupesh Dubey and Mr.
Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. S. D. Deshpande for the
Respondents
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent No. 5

[Link]. 405 / 2021

Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms. Meenal

Songire, Ms. Aarya More for the Petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

and Rupesh Dubey for the Respondents

[Link]. 2044/2022

Mr. Vishal Agarwal, Mr. Abhishek Deodhar and Mr. Rishabh

Jain for the Petitioners

Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

and Rupesh Dubey for the Respondents

[Link]. 3163 / 2021

Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Yash Prakash, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/by PDS legal for the
Petitioners

Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Mr. Karan Adik, Mr. S. D. Deshpande, Ms.

Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra a/w Mr. Rupesh Dubey
for the Respondents
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. for the State of Maharashtra

W.P.(L)No. 8737 / 2022

Dr. Avinash Poddar a/w Ms. Deepali Kamble and Ms. Anchal
Poddar for the Petitioner

Page 42 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

and Mr. Rupesh Dubey for the Respondent

[Link]. 1773 / 2024

Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Vikas Poojary, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/by PDS legal for the
Petitioners

Mr. Karan Adik a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent

Ms. Shruti Vyas a/w Mr. D. P. Singh for the Respondent No.
1/UOI

[Link]. 4640 / 2022 a/w CHOL / 286 / 2022

Mr. Bharat Raichandrani a/w Ms. Dhanishtha Kawale i/by

UBR Advocates for the Petitioner
Mr. Vijay Kantharia a/w Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra and Ms. Jyoti
Chavan for the Respondents

W.P.(L) No. 11740 / 2025

Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.

Dhananjay Sethuraj and Ms. Vidhi Jain i/by Sriram Sridharan
for the Petitioners

Ms. P. S. Cardozo a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad a/w Ms. Priyanka

Singh for the Respondents

[Link]. 2745 / 2025

Mr. Vishal Agarwal a/w Ms. Yashashvi Jain for the Petitioners

Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta yadav, Ms. Niyati

Mankad, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra Mr. Rupesh Dubey Ms. Priyanka
Singh

Ms. Jaymala Ostwal a/w Ms Niyati Mankar (thr. VC) for the
Respondents.

Page 43 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

W.P. (L) No. 15183 / 2024

Dr. Avinash Poddar, Ms. Deepali Kamble a/w Ms. Anchal

Poddar for the Petitioner

Mr. J. B. Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

a/w Mr. Rupesh Dubey for the Respondent

[Link]. 2097 / 2025

Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.

Dhananjay Sethuraj and Ms. Vidhi Jain i/by Sriram Sridharan
for the Petitioner

Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Mr Saket R Ketkar, Ms.

Sangeeta Yadav Ms. Harpreet Kaur for Respondent No. 4 & 5

[Link]. 3522 / 2024

Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.

Suyog Bhave, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/by PDS Legal for the
Petitioner

Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Mishra for the

Respondent No. 2 to 5

[Link]. 3013/2023 a/w IAL/31922/2023

Mr. Vishal Agarwal a/w Mr. Abhishek Deodhar and Mr.

Rishabh Jain for the Petitioner

Mr. Subir Kumar, Kavita Shukla and Niyanta Trivedi for the
Respondents

[Link]. 2052 / 2025

Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.

Yash Prakash i/by PDS Legal for the Petitioners

Page 44 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra for the

Respondent No. 1 to 3

W.P.(L) No. 39729/2022

Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms. Meenal

Songire, Ms. Aarya More for the Petitioner

Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

and Rupesh Dubey for the Respondent

WP/6795/2023
Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi a/w Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms.
Meenal Songire, Ms. Arya More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, for Respondent.

WP/1493/2025
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Kshitij Viswanath, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/b PDS Legal for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Mr. Karan Adik, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav,
[Link] Respondent.

WP/1006/2024 & IA/7229/2025

Mr. Mayank Jain a/w Ms. Akshita Shetty,i/by Khaitan & Co.
for the Petitioner in WP/1006/2024 & Applicant in
IA/7229/2025.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, Adv. for Respondent
Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Mr. Ram Ochani, Ms. Niyanta Trivedi,
Adv. S. D. Deshpande, Adv. for Respondent

Page 45 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WP/12927/2022
Mr. Vishal Agarwal a/w Mr. Abhishek Deodhar, Mr. Rishabh
Jain i/b TLC Legal LLP for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, Adv. for Respondent.

WP/739/2025 a/w IA/11291/2025

Mr. Prithwiraj Choudhuri a/w Ms. Kausarjahan Sayed i/b Mr.
Prabhakar Shetty, Advocate for the Petitioner in
WP/739/2025 and for Applicant in IA/11291/2025.
Mr. J B Mishra, a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Rupesh Dueby,
for the Respondents.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Abhishek R. Mishra, [Link]
Respondent No. 2 & 3.

WP/674/2024
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Dhanistha Kawale i/b UBR
Legal Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Ram Ochani, Ms. Sangeeta Yadav,
Adv. for Respondent.

WP/1325/2025
Mr. Roshil Nichani a/w Mr. Aansh Desai i/b Pythagoras Legal,
for the Petitioner.
Mr J B Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav & Mr Rupesh Dubey
Adv. for Respondent.

WP/1614/2025
Mr. Yogesh S. Patki a/w Mr. Simon Mascarenhas i/b Mulla &
Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Maya Majumdar, Mr. Harshad Shingapurkar, Adv. Soutrik

Page 46 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Kar, Mr. Ritik Gupta, Adv. for Respondent

WP/4658/2025
Mr. Stebin Mathew i/b Ms. Dishya Pandey, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria, Adv.
Harpreet Kaur Sethi, for Respondent No. 2 & 3.
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Adv. for Respondent.

WP/5816/2025
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Mihir Mehta, Mr. Mohit Rawal i/b PDS Legal, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Adv. S. D. Deshpande, Adv. for
Respondent

WP/5815/2025
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Mihir Mehta, Mr. Mohit Rawal i/b PDS Legal, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Adv. S. D. Deshpande, Adv. for
Respondent

WP(st)/15698/2025
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr.
Kshitij Viswanath, Ms. Linzy Sharan i/b PDS Legal, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Abhishek R.
Mishra and Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma a/w Sangeeta Yadav,
Adv. for Respondent No. 2 to 4 and 5, 6.

Page 47 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WP/11356/2025
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.
Dhananjay Sethuraj & Ms. Vidhi Jain i/b Mr. Sriram
Sridharan, Advocate for the Petitioner

WP/11355/2025
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.
Dhananjay Sethuraj & Ms. Vidhi Jain i/b Mr. Sriram
Sridharan, Advocate for the Petitioner

WP/4625/2025
Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Ms. Dhanistha Kawale i/b UBR
Legal Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr J B Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Adv. for Respondent.
Ms. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. GP a/w Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for
the State.

WP/12170/2023
Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi a/w Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms.
Meenal Songire, Ms. Arya More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Mr. M. P. Sharma a/w Mr. Rupesh Dubey for
Respondent

WP/11079/2025
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.
Dhananjay Sethuraj & Ms. Vidhi Jain i/b Mr. Sriram
Sridharan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria, for Respondent.

WP/11002/2025
Mr. Shashank Ajay Mehta a/w Mr. Devendra H. Jain, Advocate

Page 48 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

for the Petitioner.

WP/12169/2023
Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi a/w Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi, Ms.
Meenal Songire.
Ms. Arya More, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Ram Ochani, Adv. Sumar Kumar Das,
Adv. for Respondent

WP/11357/2025
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.
Dhananjay Sethuraj & Ms. Vidhi Jain i/b Mr. Sriram
Sridharan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

WP/11358/2025
Mr. V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sahil Parghi, Mr.
Dhananjay Sethuraj & Ms. Vidhi Jain i/b Mr. Sriram
Sridharan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Ms. Megha Bajoria, Adv. for
Respondent
WP/18847/2024
Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w Mr. Roshil Nichani, Mr. Jeffry Caleb,
Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala, Ms. Ayushi Jha, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Mishra a/w Ms. Mamta Omle, Mr. Rupesh Dubey,
for Respondent No. 2 & 3.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Ashutosh
Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, Adv. for Respondent.

WP/10972/2025
Mr. Stebin Mathew i/b Ms. Dishya Pandey, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

Page 49 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

WP/10974/2025
Mr. Stebin Mathew i/b Ms. Dishya Pandey, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Savita Ganoo a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, for Respondent.
Ms. Ruju R. Thakkar a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad (thr. VC) Mr.
Priyanshu V. Doshi, for Respondent No. 2 & 3.
______________________________________________________

CORAM: M.S. Sonak &

Jitendra Jain, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 04 September 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 11 September 2025

JUDGMENT :(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule in each of the Petitions. The Rule is made

returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Since substantially common issues of law and fact arise

in these Petitions, the learned Counsel for the parties agree
that a common order could dispose of these Petitions.

4. The learned counsel for the parties agreed that Writ

Petition No.78 of 2025, instituted by Hikal Limited, be treated
as the lead Petition for the disposal of this batch of Petitions.
Accordingly, we propose to treat this Petition as the lead
Petition.

Page 50 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

THE CHALLENGE IN THESE PETITIONS.

5. The challenge in most of these Petitions is to Rule 89

(4B) and/or 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax
Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules). Upon the omission of these Rules
(impugned Rules) vide Notification dated 08 October 2024,
notifying The Central Goods and Service Tax (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2024 (2024 Amendment Rules), the
Petitioners, without prejudice to their challenge to the
impugned Rules, contend that any savings clause does not
back such omission, and therefore, all pending proceedings,
impugned in these Petitions would stand lapsed.

6. In all these Petitions, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioners have made a categorical statement that the
allegations in the impugned show cause notices, based upon
which orders in original have been passed in some cases, the
only allegation was about the non-compliance with the
conditions prescribed either under Rule 89(4B) or 96(10) of
the CGST Rules. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in
unison, contended that there was no other allegation in the
impugned show cause notices or in the impugned orders in
the original.

7. Accordingly, we had requested the learned Counsel for

the Respondents to verify the above statements. Except in one
or two cases, which we de-tagged, the learned Counsel for the
Respondents were unable to dispute the statements made by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners or demonstrate that

Page 51 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

the impugned show cause notices contained any allegations,

besides non-compliance with Rule 89(4B) and 96(10) of the
CGST Rules.

8. In Writ Petition Nos. 14852, 14854, 14855, 14857,

14858, 14862 and 14860 of 2023, the Respondents, by
invoking the impugned Rules, forced the Petitioners to refund
the alleged excess refund made to the Petitioners. The
Petitioners, therefore, instituted these Petitions to challenge
the impugned Rules. Upon the omission of the impugned
Rules, the Petitioners have raised an additional ground to
challenge the forced recovery. The facts in Writ Petition No.
739 of 2025 are also not substantially different. In the
Petitions referred to in this paragraph, the Petitioners have
sought a refund of the amounts forcibly recovered from them
or, in any event, for processing their refund application
without adverting to any alleged breach of the impugned
Rules.

9. In short, the main issues involved in all these Petitions

relate to the constitutional validity of the Rules and, in any
event, to the lapse of pending proceedings consequent upon
the repeal or omission of the impugned Rules, which, the
Petitioners contend, were not backed by any savings clause.

BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS IN THE

LEAD PETITION (HIKAL LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA &
ORS, WRIT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025)

Page 52 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

10. The Petitioner, Hikal Limited, is engaged in the

manufacture of chemical intermediates, speciality chemicals
and active pharmaceutical ingredients used in both human
and animal healthcare. The Petitioner has pleaded that it
operates through two manufacturing units: -

(a) Taloja, Raigad (a 100% Export Oriented Unit) wherein

the Petitioner imports raw materials duty-free under
Notification No. 78/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017 and
exports nearly 90% of its finished goods. The remaining 10%
is cleared domestically.

(b) Mahad, Raigad (Domestic Tariff Area unit) for which the
Petitioner procures raw materials, inter alia, under Advance
Authorisation licenses and avails IGST exemption under
Notification No. 79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017. In some
cases, the Petitioner also undertakes the import of goods on
payment of IGST.

11. The Petitioner has pleaded that the finished goods

manufactured by the Petitioner are either exported, with or
without the payment of IGST, or sold domestically. On exports
made with payment of IGST, the Petitioner claimed a refund
under Section 54 of the CGST Act, read with Section 16 of the
IGST Act. These refunds were duly sanctioned to the
Petitioner. The Department did not challenge the refund
sanction orders.

12. In or around 2022, an investigation was initiated by the

Department for the 2017-18 to 2019-20 (‘disputed period’)

Page 53 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

based on the suspicion that the IGST refund claimed by the

Petitioner is in violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules,
2017, since certain goods were imported against advance
authorisation licenses. This investigation culminated in the
issuance of the Impugned Show Cause Notice dated
04.08.2024 proposing a GST demand of Rs. 67,11,55,626/-,
Rs. 28,25,89,849/- was for the period 23.10.2017 to
08.10.2018, and the balance demand was for the period post
08.10.2018.

13. The Petitioner instituted the present Petition on 29

August 2024, challenging the constitutional validity of Rule
96(10) of the CGST Rules and the show cause notice dated 04
August 2024, alleging the breach of the provisions of the said
Rules. During the pendency of this Petition, vide notification
No. 20/2024 dated 08 October 2024, Rule 96(10) was
omitted.

14. In the personal hearing, pursuant to the show cause

notice dated 04 August 2024, held on 12 November 2024, the
Petitioner pointed out the pendency of the present Petition
and the omission of Rule 96(10), based upon which the
impugned show cause notice was issued. The Petitioner
requested that the impugned show cause notice be dropped,
or its adjudication be kept in abeyance. The 4th Respondent,
i.e., the Joint Commissioner, did neither, but passed the
impugned order in original dated 23 January 2025 confirming
demand, interest and penalty.

Page 54 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

15. The Petitioner, therefore, amended this Petition to bring

on record the facts concerning the omission of Rule 96(10)
and raise a challenge to the impugned order in the original
dated 23 January 2025.

16. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has contended that

any savings clause did not back the omission of Rule 96(10).
Therefore, the show cause notice dated 04 August 2024 could
not have been proceeded with, and the impugned order, dated
23 January 2025, is ex facie without jurisdiction. The
Petitioner has also contended that Rule 96(10) was ultra vires
and unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Petitioner has
contended that it would have been eligible to claim a refund
under Rule 89, and the situation would thereby become
revenue neutral.

17. The Petitioner also contended that refunds to the extent

of Rs. 28,25,89,849/- claimed in respect of exports made on
payment of IGST for the period before 09 October 2018 did
not even remotely violate any of the conditions prescribed
under Rule 96(10). The challenge was also raised to the
invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section
74 of the CGST Act, in the absence of any allegation of fraud,
willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade any tax.

18. In short, the main issues involved in the lead Petition

relate to the constitutional validity of the impugned Rules
and, in any event, to the lapse of pending proceedings
consequent upon the repeal or omission of the impugned

Page 55 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Rules, which, the Petitioners contend, were not backed by any

savings clause.

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS

19. Mr Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner in the lead Writ Petition No. 78 of 2025, and the
other learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners,
advanced several contentions questioning the constitutional
validity of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules. They
submitted that these Rules were ultra vires the parent Act and,
in any event, they were affected by the vice of manifest
arbitrariness. They submitted that the effect of the said Rules
was grossly disproportionate and, accordingly, there was a
violation of the doctrine of proportionality. They submitted
that the impugned Rules, far from promoting the legislative
and executive policies, were frustrating such policies. They
submitted that in case of conflict between legislative and
executive policy on one hand and the rules made to
implement such policy, it is the former that ought to prevail.
They also submitted that the impugned Rules are expressly
discriminatory and violate the equality mandate under Article
14 of the Constitution. In support of all these contentions,
they relied upon several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.

20. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, at the very

outset, pointed out that a learned Single Judge of the Kerala

Page 56 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

High Court in the case of M/s. Sance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India (WP – C No.17447 of 2023 and other
connected matters) disposed of on 10 October 2024, has
declared Rule 96 (10) of the CGST Rules as ultra vires and
unconstitutional and directed the revenue not to initiate any
proceedings to recover any tax based upon alleged non-
compliance with Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.

21. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that

the striking down of Rule 96(10) by the Kerala High Court
will have the effect throughout the territory of India. They
submitted that no other High Court has taken any contrary
view, and even the Revenue has not challenged the decision of
the Kerala High Court in M/s Sance Laboratories Pvt Ltd
(supra). They submitted that such striking down goes to the
nativity, and therefore, any notices or orders alleging or
recording the breach of Rule 96(10), being based upon an
ultra vires or unconstitutional Rule, would have to be quashed
and set aside. They relied on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd Vs
Union of India & Anr1, Saumya and Thomas Vs Union of India
& Ors2 and Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vidarbha Vs Smt.
Godavari Devi Saraf3 in support of their contentions.

22. Without prejudice, Mr Sridharan submitted that the

2024 Amendment Rules contained in the Notification dated
08 October 2024 had omitted the impugned Rules without

1
(2004) 6 SCC 254
2
2010 (1) KLT 869
3
1977 SCC OnLine Bom 215

Page 57 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

any savings clause to save the pending proceedings. He

submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was
inapplicable to omission or repeals of Rule or, in any event,
omission or repeal by Rules. He submitted that the 2024
Amendment Rules or the CGST Act also did not contain any
savings clause to save pending proceedings consequent upon
the omission of the impugned Rules. He referred to a list of
almost 64 Notifications issued by the Central or State
Government, amending or omitting Rules which had provided
for express saving clauses. He submitted that the absence of
any savings clause in the Notification dated 08 October 2024
was conspicuous and deliberate.

23. Accordingly, Mr Sridharan submitted that the common

law principle that an omitted or repealed provision is entirely
obliterated from the statute book, as if it had never been
enacted, applies with full force to the present case, except
regarding “transactions past and closed”. He submitted that
the impugned show cause notices or orders issued thereon,
citing non-compliance with the omitted or repealed Rules, are
invalid and cannot be enforced. He relied upon the decisions
of the Constitution Bench in the case of Rayala Corporation
(P) Ltd. Vs Director of Enforcement 4, Kolhapur Cane Sugar
Works Ltd. And Anr. Vs Union of India 5, Fibre Boards (P) Ltd.
Vs Commissioner of Income-tax6, Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling

4
(1969) 2 SCC 412
5
(2000) 2 SCC 536
6
(2015) 10 SCC 333

Page 58 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise7, and Gammon India

Limited Vs Special Chief Secretary & Ors8, to support his
arguments.

24. Mr Sridharan relied on Keshavan Madhava Menon Vs

State of Bombay9, to explain the concept of “transactions past
and closed”. He emphasised passages from commentaries by
Craies and Crawford on the interpretation of statutes, referred
to in the said decision. He also relied on a passage from Wall
Vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.10, in which it was held that
transactions past and closed would imply proceedings which
have reached a final Judgment in the Court of last resort.

25. Mr Sridharan and the other learned Counsel for the

Petitioners relied on M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers Vs Union of
India and anr.11 and M/s Addwrap Packing Pvt Ltd Vs Union of
India and Ors12 to contend that the Division Benches of the
Gujarat High Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, in the
context of the Notification dated 08 October 2024 had already
held pending proceedings or even orders that could not be
described as “transactions past and closed” were not saved
because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was not
applicable and there were no savings clauses in the
Notification dated 08 October 2024 or in the CGST Act. They

7
(2015) 326 ELT 209
8
(2006) SCC 354
9
AIR 1951 SC 128
10
(125 N.E. 20)
11
2025 (5) TMI 1811
12
2025 (6) 1156 Gujarat HC

Page 59 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

submitted that these decisions fully support the Petitioners’

contentions, and, to the best of their knowledge, these
decisions were not challenged by the Revenue before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.

26. Based on the above contentions, Mr Sridharan

submitted that the impugned show cause notices, which were
not disposed of when the Notification dated 08 October 2024
omitting the impugned rules was issued, would lapse, and no
orders would have been passed disposing of such show cause
notices. He submitted that the benefit of repeal/omission
would have to be extended even to those orders which were
subject matter of challenge in these Petitions on the principle
that even such orders had not attained any finality and
therefore, could not be classified as transactions past and
closed. For these reasons, Mr Sridharan submitted that the
impugned show cause notices or the impugned orders made
disposing of such show cause notices deserved to be quashed
and set aside.

27. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the other

Petitions substantially adopted the arguments advanced by Mr
Sridharan. Some of the learned Counsel contended that the
Petitioners they represent cannot be denied a refund of the
amounts that were coercively recovered from them by citing
the violation of the impugned Rules.

Page 60 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

RESPONDENTS’ COUNTER

28. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, at the outset,

submitted that there was nothing unconstitutional or ultra
vires in so far as Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules
were concerned. They submitted that the striking down of
Rule 96(10) by the Kerala High Court would not preclude this
Court from upholding the validity of the said Rules. They
submitted that the impugned Rules were a fiscal measure, and
greater latitude should be shown to the Rule-Making
Authorities in such matters. Accordingly, they submitted that
the challenge to the constitutionality of the impugned Rules or
the argument that the impugned Rules were ultra vires the
parent Act must be rejected.

29. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was applicable because
the 2024 Amendment Rules were enacted in exercise of
powers by Section 164 of the CGST Act. Therefore, such Rules
must be regarded as “Central Act” for the purposes of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act. They relied on Chandpaklal
Shah & Anr Vs Reliance Industries Ltd 13, State of Punjab Vs
Mohar Singh14 M/s Highpoint Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs The Excise
Commissioner in Karnataka15 and Laxmi Board and Paper
Mills Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors 16 to support this
contention.
13
2017 (354) ELT 289 (SC)
14
1954 (2) scc 483
15
WP/27575/2017 & connected matters, decided on 18 August 2017.
16
1991 (51) ELT 329 (BOM)

Page 61 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

30. The learned Counsel for the Respondents also relied on

Section 174(3) of the CGST Act to argue that these provisions
refer to the general application of the General Clauses Act.
They contended that the provisions of Section 6, or at least
the principles of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, would
apply to the present case. They argued that Section 6, or at
least the principles of Section 6, are clearly relevant and
would preserve all pending proceedings that are challenged in
these Petitions.

31. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that

the decision of the Constitution Bench in Rayala Corporation
(supra) was already declared as per incuriam, or in any event,
the observations therein were declared as obiter dictum in the
latter decisions of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of
Income-tax17 and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise18. Therefore, based upon the
said decision, it could not be said that Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act does not apply to subordinate legislation
like Rules or to a case where subordinate legislation like Rules
brings about the repeal. They relied upon Vianaar Homes Pvt.
Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner19 and Commissioner of Central
Excise, Thane Vs Milton Poly Plast (I) Pvt. Ltd. 20 and the 68th
Report of the Law Commission of India on General Clauses
Act, 1897.

17
(2015) 10 SCC 333
18
(2015) 326 ELT 209
19
2020 SCC OnLine (Del.) 1394
20
2019 (367) ELT 962 (Bom.)

Page 62 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

32. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that

Rule 1(2) of the 2024 Amendment Rules stated that “ save as
otherwise provided in these rules, they shall come into force
on the date of their application in the official gazette.” Based
on this, they argued that the Rules, unless explicitly specified,
were given a prospective effect. They contended that it was
impermissible for this Court to grant any retrospective effect
to the Rules by accepting the Petitioners’ arguments.

33. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted

that the Goods and Services Tax Council, whose
recommendations led to the enactment of the 2024
Amendment Rules, had clarified that the omissions in the
impugned Rules were to operate prospectively. They further
argued that Rule 1(2) itself functions as a savings clause, and
therefore, the common law principle relied upon by the
Petitioners would not apply in this case.

34. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied upon

Section 166 of the CGST Act to submit that the savings clause
therein saves all pending post the omission or repeal of the
impugned Rules. They pointed out that the 2024 Amendment
Rules were laid before the parliament. Mr Adik went to the
extent of submitting that until the parliament approved such
Rules, they did not even enter into force. They submitted that
in any event, the savings clause in Section 166 was sufficient
to protect the pending proceedings.

Page 63 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

35. Mr Subir Kumar submitted that the impugned show

cause notices were issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act,
read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. He submitted that
neither of these provisions had been omitted or repealed.
Therefore, he submitted that omission of the impugned Rules
would not affect the impugned show cause notices or the
orders made thereon. He included several decisions in his
written submissions, but during arguments, cited only
Jayanthilal Amrathlal Vs Union of India21.

36. Based on the above contentions, the learned Counsel for

the Respondents submitted that these Petitions may be
dismissed.

PETITIONER’S REJOINDER

37. Mr Sridharan submitted that Rule 1(2) of the 2024

Amendment Rules was so worded to avoid reopening of
transactions past and closed. He submitted that if any
retrospective effect were to be given, then perhaps, even
transactions past and closed would have been rendered
vulnerable. He submitted that the issue of retrospectivity was
quite irrelevant because this was a case of omission or repeal
without any savings clause, and therefore, the common law
principle referred to earlier would apply in this batch of
Petitions.

21
(1972) 4 SCC 174

Page 64 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

38. Mr Sridharan submitted that Section 166 of the CGST

Act is concerned only with the laying of the Rules before the
Parliament. He submitted that such laying procedures are not
regarded as mandatory. In any event, the contention about the
2024 Amendment Rules not coming into force until approved
by the Parliament is misconceived and not supported by the
expressions used in Section 166. There is no factual
foundation for the 2024 Amendment Rules ever being
modified or annulled by the Parliament for the so-called
savings clause to apply. Accordingly, based upon Section 166
of the CGST Act, there was no savings of pending proceedings
in these matters.

39. Mr Sridharan submitted that Section 174 of the CGST

Act must be considered in its entirety. He submitted that this
Section only saves the enactments referred to in sub-Sections
1 and 2. The savings clause in sub-Section 3 applies only to
the repealed provisions referred to in sub-Sections 1 and 2. He
submitted that Section 174(3), at best, would require the
Court to refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
However, since the requirements of Section 6 are not
complied with, there is no question of applying Section 6 in
the facts of the present cases.

40. Mr Sridharan submitted that the argument about the

2024 Amendment Rules being framed under Section 164 of
the CGST Act and should therefore, be regarded as, a “Central
Act” for purpose of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, was,

Page 65 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

to some extent, accepted by the Full Bench of the Gujarat

High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical
Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 22 and by the Division Bench
of Karnataka High Court in Falcon Tyres Limited Vs. Union of
India23. However, these decisions were expressly overruled by
the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Canes Sugar Works Ltd
(supra). He submitted that the decisions in the case of M/s.
High Point Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Laxmi Board and
Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which take the same view as in
Saurashtra Cements (supra) and Falcon Tyres Ltd. (supra),
also run counter to the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Kolhapur Canes Sugar Works Ltd. (supra).

41. For all the above reasons, Mr. Sridharan and the other
learned Counsel for the Petitioners in this batch of Petitions
submitted that the Rule in all these Petitions may be made
absolute.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

42. Based on the pleadings and rival contentions, the

following main issues arise for determination in this batch of
Petitions: -

(i) Whether the impugned Rules are ultra vires

the CGST Act or otherwise unconstitutional, null
and void?

(ii) What is the legal effect of the omission of

22
(1995) 79 E.L.T. 367
23
(1992) 60 E.L.T. 166

Page 66 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

the impugned Rules vide Notification dated 08

October 2024 (without any protection of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act or savings clauses in
the Rules or the parent Act, as contended by the
Petitioners) on all the proceedings and orders
impugned in these Petitions?

(iii) Whether any of the impugned orders could

be regarded as “transactions past and closed”?

(iv) Whether, as contended by the Respondents,

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves the
impugned pending proceedings or orders?

(v) Whether, as contended by the Respondents,

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to the
omission or repeal of the impugned Rules because
the 2024 Amendment Rules are enacted by
exercising the powers under Section 164 of the
CGST Act, and therefore, the Rules qualify to be
regarded as “Central Act” at least for the purposes
of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act?

(vi) Whether, as contended by the Respondents,

the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act are attracted to the present omission or repeal
of the impugned Rules, given the provisions of
Section 174(3) of the CGST Act?

(vii) Whether, as contended by the respondents,

Clause 1(2) of the Notification dated 08 October
2024 purporting to give prospective effect to the
omission or repeal of the impugned Rules saves all

Page 67 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

pending proceedings commenced before 08

October 2024?

(viii). Whether, as contended by the

Respondents, the pending proceedings as on the
date of omission or repeal of the impugned Rules
stand saved by virtue of Section 166 of the CGST
Act?

EVALUATION OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS,

DETERMINATION OF THE ABOVE ISSUES AND ANALYSIS.

ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE IMPUGNED RULES BEING ULTRA

VIRES THE CGST ACT OR OTHERWISE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID (FIRST ISSUE)

43. Though, based upon the pleadings and the arguments

advanced, the first issue regarding the impugned Rules being
ultra vires the CGST Act or otherwise unconstitutional, null
and void is raised in this batch of Petitions, for the reasons
discussed hereafter, we do not propose to determine this issue.

44. In matters of examining the constitutional validity of the

provisions of any legislative act or even the Rules made
thereunder, one of the salutary principles is that a
Constitutional Court must not embark upon such an
examination only because it can or it is empowered to do so.
Such vital questions must be examined only if it is necessary
to do so, and a Petitioner’s grievance cannot be suitably

Page 68 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

redressed without addressing such an issue of constitutional

validity of a statute or the Rules framed under the statute.
45. Ordinarily, a Court should not decide issues of
constitutional validity of statutes or rules unless they are
absolutely necessary and the case at hand cannot be disposed
of without dealing with and resolving such issues. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in several cases that academic
exercise in constitutional law is not for Courts but for jurists,
and the Court should not enter into such issues and interpret
them unless it is really necessary. Therefore, if a Petition can
be disposed of on any other issue by granting at least
substantially the relief which the Petitioner seeks without
examining the constitutional validity of a statutory provision
or even the rules made thereunder, then the Constitutional
Court should not rush to examine and decide on the issue of
constitutional validity, merely because it may be empowered
to do so.

46. The above principles have been settled and explained

inter alia in Bhut Nath Mete V. State of W.B. 24; Sumedico
Corpn V. R.P.F. Commr.25, K. I. Shepherd V. Union of India26 and
Central Organisation of T.N. Electricity Employees V. T.N.
Electricity Board (2005) 8 SCC 729, 74527.
24
(1974) 1 SCC 645

25
(1998) 8 SCC 381

26
(1987) 4 SCC 431

27
(2005) 8 SCC 729, 745

Page 69 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

47. In this batch of Petitions, for reasons that we will discuss

elaborately hereafter, we are satisfied that the Petitioners are
entitled to succeed on the ground that this is a case of
omission or repeal of the impugned Rules without any savings
clause to protect the pending proceedings. Besides, we are
also satisfied that the provisions of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act are not attracted and therefore, relying upon
these provisions, the pending proceedings can claim no
immunity or protection. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to
determine the issue of the constitutionality of the impugned
rules.

48. However, we wish to briefly record one of the

controversies regarding the constitutionality of Rule 96(10) of
the CGST Rules, which is not significantly different from Rule
89(4B) of the CGST Rules. The first Rule applies to exports
and the second to imports. Both the Rules provide for certain
safeguards to ensure that there is no overlap between taxes
and refunds regarding specific exports and imports.

49. One of the contentions raised on behalf of some of the

Petitioners was that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was
already struck down as unconstitutional, null and void by the
learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of
M/s. Sance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Based upon this,
they contended that such a striking down will have an effect
throughout the territory of India. They further contended that
such striking down goes to the nativity, and therefore, any
notices or orders alleging or recording the breach of any of
the requirements of Rule 96(10), being based upon an ultra

Page 70 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

vires and unconstitutional Rule, would have to be quashed

and set aside.

50. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that where a competent Court having
territorial jurisdiction passes an order on a Writ Petition
questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary Act, then,
keeping in view the provisions in Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India, such order, will have effect throughout
the territory of India, subject of-course to the applicability of
the Act.

51. Following Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) the

Coordinate Bench of this Court comprising Abhay S Oka, J (as
His Lordship then was) and C V Bhadang, J held that the
striking down of Section 10-A(1) of the Divorce Act, 1869 by
the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of
Saumya and Thomas (supra), would have effect throughout
the territory of India. Therefore, the Family Court at Bandra,
Maharashtra, could not have ignored the striking down of
Section 10-A (1) of the Divorce Act by the Kerala High Court,
on the ground that such a decision was not binding upon the
Courts and Authorities in the State of Maharashtra.

52. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Vidarbha (supra),

another Coordinate Bench of this Court, comprising
Kantawala, CJ and Chandurkar, J (as His Lordship then was),
rejected the contention that the striking down of Section 140-
A(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Madras High Court in the
case of A.M. Sali Maricar And Anr. Vs Income-Tax Officer And
Anr28 was not binding upon the Income Tax Authorities or the
28
(1973) 90 ITR 116

Page 71 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Income Tax Tribunals in the State of Maharashtra. The

Coordinate Bench held that the Income Tax Act was an all-
India statute. If an Income Tax Tribunal in Madras was bound
by the decision in A.M. Sali Maricar (supra), then, in the
absence of any contrary decision given by any other
competent High Court, binding on the authorities and
tribunals in the State of Maharashtra, such authorities and
tribunals in the State of Maharashtra must proceed based on
the law declared by the High Court, even of another State and
quash the assessment and penalties under the provision
already struck down.

53. In these matters, none of the learned Counsel appearing

on behalf of the Respondents was able to make any statement
regarding the challenge to the Kerala High Court’s decision
declaring Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules as ultra vires and
unconstitutional. The Uttarakhand High Court, in the case of
M/s Shree Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra), has already taken
cognisance of the Kerala High Court’s decision and proceeded
based on its unconstitutionality. The learned Counsel for the
Respondents were also unable to make any statement about
the challenge to the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision.

54. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Thana

Electricity Supply Ltd29, another Coordinate Bench of this
Court of this Court comprising Dr B P Saraf, J (as His Lordship
then was) & U T Shah, J, however, after noticing the earlier
decision in Godavari Devi Saraf (supra) had suggested that
the observations in Godavari Devi Saraf (supra) cannot be
taken as the ratio decidendi and would, at best, constitute

29
1993 SCC OnLine BOM 591

Page 72 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

obiter dictum. The Coordinate Bench held that such

observations might have persuasive efficacy but not a binding
character as in the case of a precedent.

55. Though, for reasons discussed above, we do not propose

to examine the issue of constitutional validity of Rules 89(4B)
and 96(10) of the CGST Rules, we have noted the contention
raised on behalf of some of the Petitioners that since Rule
96(10) is already struck down by the Kerala High Court, the
effect of such striking down must enure even in the State of
Maharashtra and the authorities in the State of Maharashtra
cannot ignore the declaration made by the Kerala High Court
in the case of M/s Sance Laboratories Pvt Ltd (supra)
regarding unconstitutionality of Rule 96(10) of the CGST
Rules, until the said Rule was omitted vide Notification dated
08 October 2024.

56. We have also noted how, at least two Coordinate

Benches of this Court in the case of Godavari Devi Saraf
(supra) and Lancy Leo Mendonca & Ors Vs Union of India &
Ors30 have taken a view that supports the contention of the
Petitioners, though another Coordinate Bench in the case of
Thana Electricity Supply Ltd (supra) may have taken a slightly
different view in the matter.

57. Accordingly, we once again clarify that in this batch of

Petitions we are not addressing the issue of Rules 89(4B) and
96(10) of the CGST Rules being ultra vires the parent act or
otherwise unconstitutional, null and void because, for reasons
discussed hereafter, we are satisfied that these Petitions
should succeed on the ground of the effect of omission of the
30
2015 SCC OnLine BOM 5743

Page 73 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

said two Rules, without any effective savings clause to protect

the pending proceedings.

LEGAL EFFECT OF THE OMISSION OR REPEAL OF THE

IMPUGNED RULES WITHOUT PROTECTION OF ANY
SAVINGS CLAUSES OR SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL
CLAUSES ACT (SECOND ISSUE)

58. The Central Government, in the exercise of powers

conferred upon it by Section 164 of the CGST Act, issued a
Notification dated 08 October 2024 containing the 2024
Amendment Rules by which the impugned Rules came to be
omitted. The relevant extract of 2024 Amendment Rules as
contained in the Notification dated 08 October 2024 is
transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -

Notification-GST-Central GST (CGST)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department Of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS)
NOTIFICATION NO. 20/2024-Central Tax
New Delhi, the 8th October, 2024.
G.S.R. 626(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by section 164
of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (12 of 2017),
the Central Government, on the recommendations of the Council,
hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017, namely:−
1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Goods and
Services Tax (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024,
(2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, they shall
come into force on the date of their publication in the Official
Gazette.
2. ……………………………

Page 74 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

3. ……………………………
4. …………………………….
5. …………………………….
6. ……………………………..
7. …………………………….
8. ……………………………..
9. In the said rules, in rule 89.-
(a) in sub-rules (4),-
(i) in clause (B), the words, brackets, figures and letters
"other than the input tax credit availed for which refund is
claimed under sub-rules (4A) or (4B) or both” shall be omitted;
(ii) in clause (C), the words, brackets, figures and letters,
“other than the turnover of supplies in respect of which refund is
claimed under sub rules (4A) or (4B) or both” shall be omitted;
(iii) in clause (E), for the long line beginning with the
word "excluding" and ending with the words "during the
relevant period", the words "excluding the value of exempt
supplies other than zerorated supplies during the relevant
period” shall be substituted;
(b) sub-rules (4A) and (4B) shall be omitted;
(c) in such-rule (5), in the Explanation, in clause (a), the
words, brackets, figures and letters “other than the input tax
credit availed for which refund is claimed under sub-rules (4A)
or (4B) or both” shall be omitted.
10. In the said rules, in rule 96, sub-rule (10) shall be omitted.
11. ……………………………….
12. ……………………………….
13. ……………………………….
14. ……………………………….
15. ……………………………….
16. ……………………………….
17. ……………………………….
18. ……………………………….
19. ……………………………….

Page 75 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

20. ……………………………….
21. ……………………………….
22. ……………………………….
Form GST SPL-01, 01 to 08
Note: The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India.
Extraordinary, Part II. Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number
G.S.R. 610(E), dated the 19th June. 2017 No. 3/2017-Central
Tax. dated the 19th June, 2017 and were last amended vide
notification number G.S.R. 376 (E). dated the 10th July 2024 No.
12/2024-Central Tax. dated the 10th July 2024.
59. From the above, it is indisputable that the impugned
rules stand deleted. The only dispute revolves around the
scope of such omission or repeal. The Petitioners contend that
any savings clause did not back such omission or repeal, and
therefore, the common law principle regarding repeals
obliterating the repealed provision from the statute book or
rule book would apply. The Respondents admit the omission
or repeal but contend that the common law rule would not
apply because pending proceedings have been expressly
saved.

60. Justice G P Singh, in his “Principles of Statutory

Interpretation”, 15th edition, has explained that under the
common law, the consequences of the repeal of a statute are
very drastic. Except as to transactions past and closed, a
statute after its repeal is treated as completely obliterated as if
it had never been enacted. The effect is to destroy all inchoate
rights and all causes of action that may have arisen under the
repealed statute. Therefore, leaving aside the cases where
proceedings were commenced, prosecuted and brought to a

Page 76 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

finality before the repeal, no proceeding under the repealed

statute can be commenced or continued after the repeal (See
Keshvan Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs Mohar
Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board, Bareilly33, State of
Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34 and Mohan Raj Vs
Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr35).

61. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edn., the word

“repeal’ has been defined as to repeal an Act is to cause it to
cease to be a part of the corpus juris or body of law. To repeal
an enactment contained in an Act is to cause it to cease to be
in law a part of the Act containing it. The general principle is
that, except as to transactions past and closed, an Act or
enactment which is repealed is to be treated thereafter as if it
had never existed. When an Act is repealed, then it is treated
as revoked or abrogated, and removed from what is popularly
known as the statute-book.

62. Crawford, in his book on the Interpretation of Laws,

stated that an express repeal will operate to abrogate an
existing law, unless there is some indication to the contrary,
such as a saving clause. Even existing rights and pending
litigations, both civil and criminal, may be affected, although
it is not an uncommon practice to use the saving clause in

31
AIR 1951 SC 128
32
AIR 1955 SC 84
33
AIR 1974 SC 396
34
AIR 1996 SC 2181
35
AIR 2007 SC 232

Page 77 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

order to preserve existing rights and to exempt pending

litigation.

63. In Gammon India Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, after referring to the various commentaries, accepted
the common law principle that a repeal or an omission
(without any savings clause) is to obliterate the statute from
the statute book and any proceedings which have not
culminated in a final judgment prior to the repeal are abated
at the consummation of the repeal. However, it was also
observed that where the repeal does not contemplate either a
substantial common law or a statutory right, but merely the
procedure prescribed to secure the enforcement of the right,
then the right itself is not annulled but remains in existence,
enforced by applying the new procedure.

64. In the present batch of Petitions, it was not even argued

that the provisions in Rule 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST
Rules were not substantive provisions affecting the rights of
importers and exporters. In any case, a review of these Rules
makes it clear that they are not purely procedural but impact
substantive rights of the parties. Therefore, the removal or
repeal of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) would essentially erase
these Rules from existence as if they had never been enacted
or passed, and they should be regarded as provisions that
never existed, except in relation to “transactions past and
closed”.

Page 78 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

65. Thus, subject to further discussion on whether this is a

case of omission or repeal backed by any savings clauses, it is
evident that an omission or a repeal without any savings
clauses would lapse the impugned proceedings or orders
unless they qualify as “transactions past and closed”.

TRANSACTIONS PAST AND CLOSED [ THIRD ISSUE]

66. In these matters, not even an attempt was made by the

learned Counsel for the Respondents to contend that the
impugned show cause notices or for that matter, the orders
challenged in these Petitions, were covered by the expression
“transactions past and closed”. In cases where the show cause
notices did not culminate in any orders, obviously, the
transaction is not covered by the expression. Not only do such
show cause notices become vulnerable, but even the orders
made after the date of omission or repeal, i.e. after 08
October 2024, become vulnerable. The show cause notices
could not have proceeded any further post the repeal or
omission of the impugned Rules i.e. beyond 08 October 2024.
In some petitions, the challenge is to orders made by
adjudicating authorities before October 08, 2024. However, a
challenge to such orders was raised and was pending either
before the Appellate Authorities or this Court. In such
circumstances, even such orders could not be regarded as final
for them to be included in the expression “transactions past
and closed”

Page 79 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

67. In M/s Add Wrap Packaging Pvt Ltd (supra) the

Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has considered this
aspect of the omission or repeal of these very impugned Rules
on pending proceedings in some detail. The Division Bench
held that the omission or repeal of the impugned Rules would
affect pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has
not taken place. The Division Bench held that the omission of
Rule 96-10 would apply to all the proceedings/cases/Petitions
which are pending adjudication either before the High Court
or before the adjudicating authorities and no further
proceedings are required to be carried forward and the
Petitioners would be entitled to maintain refund claims of
IGST paid on export of goods. The impugned show cause
notices and the orders were therefore quashed and set aside,
and it was declared that the Petitioners were entitled to
maintain refund claims for IGST paid for the export of goods.

68. In Keshavan Menon Vs State of Bombay (supra), the

expression and concept of “transactions past and closed” was
explained in the context of repeal of an Act in paragraph Nos.
11, 12 and 14, which are transcribed below for the
convenience of reference: -

“11. This statement of law by Craies was referred to with

Approval and adopted by the F. C. in J. K. Gas, Plant
Manufacturing Co., (Rampur), Ltd. v. Emperor, (1947) F.C.R.
141 at p. 166: (A. I. R. (34) 1947 F.C. 38:48 Cr. L. J. 886). As to
the effect of the repeal of an Act, the following passage from
Craies' book seems to sum up the legal position as it obtained in

Page 80 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

England before the enactment of the Interpretation Act of

1889 :

‘When an Act of Parliament is repealed," said Lord

Tenterden in Surtees v. Ellison, (1829) 9 B. and C. 750 at
p. 752: (7 L. J. K. B. 335), "it must be considered (except
as to transactions past and closed) as if it had never
existed. That is the general rule." Tindal C. J. states the
exception more widely. He says (in Kay v. Goodwin,
(1830) 6 Bing. 576: (8 L.J.C.P. 212): "The effect of
repealing a statute is to obliterate it as completely from
the records of the Parliament as if it had never been
passed; and it must be considered as a law that never
existed except for the purpose of those actions which were
commenced, prosecuted and concluded whilst it was an
existing law." (p. 350)

12. Again, Crawford in his book on "Statutory Construction"

dealing with the general effect of the repeal of an Act states the
law in America to be as follows: "A repeal will generally,
therefore, divest all inchoate rights which have arisen under the
repealed statute, and destroy all accrued causes of action based
thereon. As a result, such a repeal, without a saving clause, will
destroy any proceeding, whether not yet begun, or whether
pending at the time of the enactment of the repealing Act, and
not already prosecuted to a final judgment so as to create a
vested right" (pp. 599-600).

14. The author then proceeds to quote the following passage

from Wall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., (125 Ν. Ε. 20) :

"It is well settled that if a Statute giving a special remedy

is repealed without a saving clause in favour of pending
suits all suits must stop where the repeal finds them. If

Page 81 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

final relief has not been granted before the repeal went
into effect, it cannot be after. If a case is appealed, and
pending the appeal the law is changed, the appellate Ct.
must dispose of the case under the law in force when its
decision was rendered. The effect of the repeal is to
obliterate the Statute repealed as completely as if it had
never been passed, and it must be considered as a law
which never existed, except for the purposes of those
actions or suits which were commenced, prosecuted and
concluded while it was an existing law. Pending judicial
proceedings based upon a Statute cannot proceed after
its repeal. This rule holds true until the proceedings have
reached a final judgment in the Ct. of last resort, for that
Ct., when it comes to announce its decision, conforms it
to the law then existing, and may, therefore, reverse a
judgment which was correct when pronounced in the
subordinate tribunal from whence the appeal was taken,
if it appears that pending the appeal a Statute which was
necessary to support the judgment of the lower Ct. has
been withdrawn by an absolute repeal." (p. 601).

WHETHER SECTION 6 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT IS

APPLICABLE AND SAVES THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS
(FOURTH ISSUE)

69. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act reads as follows: -

“6. Effect of repeal.—Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or

Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any
enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a
different intention appears, the repeal shall not—
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the
time at which the repeal takes effect; or

Page 82 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment

so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;
or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability
acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so
repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment
incurred in respect of any offence committed against any
enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation,
liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid,

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be

instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty,
forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act
or Regulation had not been passed.”
70. From the analysis of Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act, 1897, it is evident that for the savings clause to apply, the
repeal of any enactment must be brought about by the
following:

(a) by “this Act”, i.e., the General Clauses Act; or

(b) any Central Act; or

(c) Regulation.

71. The expression “this Act” offers no difficulty because it

means the General Clauses Act, 1897. Similarly, the
expression “Central Act” is defined under Section 3(7) of the
General Clauses Act to mean an Act of Parliament and shall
include an Act of the Dominion legislature or Indian
legislature before the commencement of the Constitution, and
an Act made before such commencement by the Governor
General in Council or the Governor General acting in

Page 83 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

legislative capacity. The expression “regulation” has been

defined under Section 3(50) of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

72. In the present matter, the notification dated 8 October

2024 by which Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules
stand omitted or repealed is neither the General Clauses Act
nor any Central Act as defined under Section 3(7). So also,
the said notification is not some “regulation” as defined under
Section 3(50) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The
notification only contains the Central Goods and Services Tax
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2024. Therefore, on a plain
reading of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to an
omission or repeal brought about by the notification dated 08
October 2024, which is nothing but a “Rule”, the provisions of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would not apply.

73. In Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and in Kolhapur

Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra), the Constitution Benches of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, applies to repeals of a Central Act
or a Regulation [as defined under section 3(7) and 3(50)],
but not to the repeal of any “Rule”. Thus, on a plain reading of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and on the authority of
the two Constitution Bench decisions, there is no scope to
hold that Section 6 applies to the repeal or omission of the
two rules brought about by the Notification dated 08 October
2024.

Page 84 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

74. Mr Mishra’s contention that the entire decision in

Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) or all the observations
therein constitute obiter dictum, given the decisions in Fibre
Boards Pvt Ltd (supra) and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills
(supra), is, with respect, misconceived. The latter two
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court only hold that the
observations in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) to the
effect that there is a difference between an “omission” and
“repeal” and that the provisions of Section 6 apply only to a
“repeal” and not to an “omission” constitute an obiter dictum.

75. However, the ratio decidendi of Rayala Corporation Pvt

Ltd (supra) continues to be that a repeal of any enactment
otherwise than by the General Clauses Act, a Central Act or a
regulation as defined under Section 3(50) of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 would not attract the provisions of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The latter two decisions,
in fact, held that the Constitution Bench, having concluded
that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was not applicable
to a “repeal” by a Rule, should not have gone further and
commented on the distinction between an omission and the
repeal. The observations regarding the distinction only were
therefore held to be obiter dictum and departed from.

76. In any event, Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra)

clinches the issue. This decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court related to the applicability of
Rules 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules. Before the High

Page 85 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Court, one of the contentions raised by the Appellants was

that Rules 10 and 10-A had been deleted and a new Rule 10
had been introduced by a notification dated 6 August 1977.
The effect of such deletion and introduction of a new
provision was that the old Rules under which the show cause
notice was issued ceased to exist; thereafter, further
proceedings were without jurisdiction since the notification of
6 August 1977 did not contain any saving clause. It was also
contended by the Appellant that Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act did not apply because it does not apply to the
repeal of statutory Rules and because it applies only where
there is a repeal by a central Act, whereas in the case at hand,
the repeal was only by a notification. The High Court repealed
these contentions and dismissed the Writ Petition.

77. The appeal against the High Court’s decision initially

came up before a Bench of two Judges who felt that, having
regard to the importance of the questions involved and the
possible necessity of revisiting the Constitution Bench decision
in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra), the matter should be
considered by a Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench
noted that Rules 10 and 10-A were omitted, and a new
provision was introduced by Rule 10 with effect from 6
August 1977. The show cause notice issued under the omitted
Rule 10 and 10-A was sought to be saved by resort to Section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987.

Page 86 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

78. The Constitution Bench, upon an in-depth analysis of

the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and the
previous precedents on the subject, held the following at
paragraphs 36 to 40: -

“36. In the case in hand Rule 10 or Rule 10-A is neither a

"Central Act" nor a "regulation" as defined in the Act. It
may be a Rule under Section 3(51) of the Act. Section 6 is
applicable where any Central Act or regulation made after
commencement of the General Clauses Act repeals any
enactment. It is not applicable in the case of omission of a
"rule".
37. The position is well known that at common law,
the normal effect of repealing a statute or deleting a
provision is to obliterate it from the statute-book as
completely as if it had never been passed, and the statute
must be considered as a law that never existed. To this
rule, an exception is engrafted by the provisions of
Section 6(1). If a provision of a statute is unconditionally
omitted without a saving clause in favour of pending
proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission
finds them, and if final relief has not been granted before
the omission goes into effect, it cannot be, granted
afterwards. Savings of the nature contained in Section 6
or in special Acts may modify the position. Thus the
operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the
past largely depends on the savings applicable. In a case
where a particular provision in a statute is omitted and in
its place another provision dealing with the same
contingency is introduced without a saving clause in
favour of pending proceedings then it can be reasonably
inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the
pending proceedings shall not continue but fresh
proceedings for the same purpose may be initiated under
the new provision.
38. In the present case, as noted earlier, Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act has no application. There is no
saving provision in favour of pending proceedings.
Therefore action for realisation of the amount refunded
can only be taken under the new provision in accordance
with the terms thereof.
39. The further question that arises for consideration
in this connection is whether Notification No. 267/77

Page 87 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

dated 6-8-1977 by which Rule 10 was deleted contained

any provision for continuance of the proceedings already
initiated and whether Act 25 of 1978 which introduced
Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, adopted the legal
device of creating a fiction by virtue of which proceedings
under Rule 10 could be deemed to be proceedings under
Section 11-A of the Act. If such was the position then it
could be argued that the proceedings initiated when the
old Rule 10 was in force could be continued on the
strength of the clause of the notification by which the said
Rule was omitted and substituted by a new Rule which in
turn was substituted by Section 11-A of the Act.
40. From the contents of the provisions in the Rules it
is clear that it did not contain any saving clause for
continuance of the proceedings initiated under the Rule
which was deleted/omitted. There is also no provision in
Section 11-A or in any other section of the Act saving the
proceedings initiated under the deleted/omitted
provision. The consequential position that follows is that
the proceedings lapsed after 6-8-1977 and any order
passed in the proceedings thereafter is to be treated as
non est. In case the notice was issued after Section 11-A
was introduced in the Act, the proceedings will continue
and will not be affected by this decision. All the cases are
disposed of on the terms aforesaid. No costs.”

79. In the present batch of Petitions, what are repealed are

“Rules”. More importantly, the Rules are repealed by
notification dated 08 October 2024, which is also nothing but
the Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment)
Rules, 2024. Therefore, upon a plain reading of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, or in any event, given the
decisions in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and Kolhapur
Cane Sugar Works (supra), the provisions of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, would not apply to such a repeal
or omission.

80. The Sixtieth Report of the Law Commission of India on

The General Clauses Act, 1897, made in May 1974 and cited
by Mr Karan Adik, notes that the main purpose of Section 6 of

Page 88 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

the General Clauses Act was to overturn the common law rule
that a repeal nullifies the statute for all future purposes.
Ultimately, the Law Commission itself concluded that the
section was quite comprehensive in its scope and content, and
it did not see a need for any changes (see paras 6.2 and 6.8).

81. Therefore, by focusing on a single line in paragraph

1.18 of the Law Commission Report, which states that there
can be no better testimony to the utility of the General
Clauses Act than the fact that the Courts have, on
considerations of equity, justice, and good conscience,
extended its principles not only to subordinate legislation but
also to private documents, we are not prepared to hold that
the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, as they
currently stand, would cover the case of an omission or a
repeal of subordinate legislation caused by another
subordinate legislation. Such an interpretation would run
counter to the two Constitution Bench decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
82. Consequently, based upon the provisions of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Respondents cannot assert
that the show cause notices issued under the omitted or
repealed Rules or the orders made in disposing of show cause
notices after the Rules or the orders that had not attained
finality are saved by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, 1897.

SINCE THE 2024 RULES BY WHICH THE IMPUGNED RULES

WERE OMITTED/REPEALED WERE MADE UNDER SECTION
164 OF THE CGST ACT, CAN THEY BE REGARDED AS

Page 89 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

‘CENTRAL ACT’ FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 6 OF THE

GENERAL CLAUSES ACT? (FIFTH ISSUE)

83. As noted earlier, the expression ‘Central Act’ appearing

in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is defined under
Section 3(7) of the General Clauses Act. There is no case
made out to ignore this statutory definition or to elevate Rules
framed under the Central Act to the status of a Central Act.
There is a clear distinction between a Central Act and the
Rules, which are subordinate legislation, that may be framed
by exercising the powers conferred by such Central Act. The
Central Act is a primary legislation enacted by the Parliament.
The Rules are a subordinate legislation enacted by the Central
Government in the present case. The Rules cannot be elevated
to the status of a Central Act merely because they may have
been enacted by exercising the powers under the Central Act.
Therefore, in principle, the contention based upon Section
164 of the CGST Act cannot be accepted.

84. Contentions, very similar to the one raised above, were

accepted by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the
case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries (supra)
and by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Falcon Tyres Ltd (supra). Incidentally, an almost
identical contention was also accepted in M/s Highpoint
Hotels Pvt Ltd (supra) and Laxmi Board and Papers Mills Pvt
Ltd (supra).

Page 90 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

85. However, the Constitution Bench in the case of Kolhapur

Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra) expressly overruled the Gujarat
and Karnataka decisions and “other decisions taking a similar
view”. The Constitution Bench held that in case of repeal or
omission of any Rule, the Court must look to the provision in
the Rule which has been introduced after the omission of the
previous Rule to determine whether pending proceedings will
continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that the
pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under
the old Rule as if the Rule had not been deleted or omitted,
then such proceedings will continue. If the case is covered by
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or there is a pari
materia provision in the statute under which the Rule has
been framed, in that case also, the pending proceeding will
not be affected by the omission of the Rule. In the absence of
any such provision in the statute or in the Rule, the pending
proceedings would lapse on the Rule under which the notice
was issued or proceedings were initiated being
deleted/omitted.

86. We have considered the decisions in Highpoint Hotels

Pvt Ltd (supra) and Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd
(supra). At the time when Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt
Ltd (supra) was decided, the Coordinate Bench did not have
the benefit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra). The decision in
Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd (supra) takes a view
which does not align with the view taken by the Constitution

Page 91 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Bench in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Pvt Ltd (supra).

Similarly, with respect, we believe that even the decision of
the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of Highpoint Hotels Pvt Ltd (supra) may not be
consistent with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra).

87. Besides, the main ground given by the learned Single

Judge of Karnataka High Court for distinguishing the
Constitution Bench’s decision in the case of Rayala
Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) is that the said judgment related
to offence and prosecution for alleged breach of Rule 132-A of
the Defence of India Rules and the case before the learned
Single Judge concerned compensation to the State for loss of
revenue caused by short lifting of liquor quantity under Rule
14(2) of the Excise Rule, 1968. With respect, we do not agree
that the ratio decidendi of the Constitution Bench decision in
Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) could have been brushed
aside, based upon such a distinction. In our view, such a
distinction was not quite relevant for brushing aside the ratio
decidendi in the Constitution Bench’s decision.

88. Similarly, the decision of the Constitution Bench in the

case of Kolhapur Case Sugar Works Ltd (supra) was sought to
be distinguished by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka
High Court by holding that there was no re-enactment of Rule
14(2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 after the omission of this
Rule on 1 August 2014. Further, the learned Single Judge of

Page 92 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

the Karnataka High Court applied Section 6 of the General

Clauses Act by observing that the Constitution Bench’s
decisions in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and Kolhapur
Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra) concerned the treatment of the
omission of a Rule as not constituting a repeal for the
purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

89. With respect, though, in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd

(supra), a distinction was made between “omission” and the
“repeal”, there was no occasion for making any such
distinction in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra).
Secondly, in Fibre Boards Pvt Ltd (supra) and Shree Bhagwati
Steel Rolling Mills (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the observations regarding the distinction between
omission and repeal were not the ratio decidendi of M/s
Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) but, at best, were obiter
dictum. Therefore, with respect, we are hesitant to agree with
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka
High Court when it comes to distinguishing the Constitution
Bench decisions in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and
Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra).

90. Therefore, the argument that the Notification dated 08

October 2024 or the Central Goods and Service Tax (Second
Amendment) Rules, 2024 must be regarded as “Central Act”
for the purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act only
because such rules were enacted in the exercise of powers
conferred upon the Central Government by Section 164 of the

Page 93 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

CGST Act cannot be accepted. Similar contentions seeking to

elevate rules framed under a Central Act to the status of a
Central Act have been expressly rejected by the Constitution
Bench.

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON SECTION 174(3) OF THE CGST

ACT (SIXTH ISSUE)

91. Section 174 of the CGST Act is concerned with ‘Repeal

and Saving’. Section 174(1) repeals the Acts specifically
referred to therein. Section 174(2) provides that the repeal of
the specified Acts and the amendment of the Finance Act,
1994, to the extent mentioned in sub-Section (1) or Section
173 shall not, inter alia, affect pending proceedings. Thus,
while Section 174(1) repeals the specified enactments,
Section 174(2) saves the pending proceedings or any actions
that might have been taken under the repealed enactments.
This provision was necessary and enacted to ensure a smooth
transition from the erstwhile regime to the GST regime.

92. Since particular emphasis was laid by the learned

counsel for the Respondents on Section 174(3) of the CGST
Act, we transcribe the same herein below for the convenience
of reference.

“The mention of the particular matters referred to

in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not be held to
prejudice or affect the general application of section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to
the effect of repeal.”

Page 94 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

93. Section 174(3) of the CGST Act appears to have been

enacted as a matter of abundant caution. The provisions of
Section 174 must be read and construed in their entirety.
Section 174(1) repeals the Acts specified therein. Section
174(2) is a savings clause qua anything done under the Acts
repealed by Section 174(1). Section 174(3), by making
applicable the provisions of the General Clauses Act, which
would include the provisions of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, imparts some additional protection that might
have been missed by the provisions of Section 174(2) on
account of the repeal of the Acts specified in Section 174(1).
At least prima facie, Section 174(3) would have no
application qua the repeal of any Acts not specified in Section
174(1). Therefore, Section 174(3) cannot be regarded as a
savings clause to protect the pending proceedings under the
impugned Rules omitted vide Notification dated 08 October
2024.

94. In any event, even if we accept Mr Adik’s liberal

construction of Section 174(3), still, at best, this Section will
oblige the Courts to refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act. However, if the requirements of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act are not fulfilled, because the repeal is not by any
Central Act, etc., then there is no question of applying Section
6 of the General Clauses Act by referring to Section 174(3) of
the CGST Act. Section 174(3), at best, makes applicable the
provisions of the General Clauses Act, which would include
Section 6, but surely, Section 174(3) does not operate to

Page 95 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

amend the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

That would be an extremely tenuous or strained construction
of Section 174(3) of the said Act.

95. Therefore, even the argument based on Section 174(3)

of the CGST Act made on behalf of the Respondents cannot be
accepted.

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON CLAUSE 1(2) OF THE

NOTIFICATION DATED 08 OCTOBER 2024 (SEVENTH ISSUE)

96. The learned Counsel for the Respondents then argued

that Clause 1(2) of the notification dated 08 October 2024
should be interpreted as a savings clause. They argued that
this clause grants prospective effect to the omission of Rules
89(4B) and 96(10). They also relied on the minutes of the
GST Council and the observation therein that the omission of
these Rules was intended to be prospective and not
retrospective.

97. Clause 1(2) only provides that the CGST (Second

Amendment) Rules, 2024, would come into effect from the
date of their publication in the official gazette, i.e., on 08
October 2024. The issue with which we are concerned is not
of prospectivity or retrospectivity. The issue with which we are
concerned is the effect of such omission or repeal of Rules
89(4B) and 96(10) without there being any savings clause to
protect or save pending proceedings.

Page 96 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

98. As noted earlier, even if the two Rules are omitted on 08

October 2024, the common law Rule that such Rules are
completely obliterated or treated as never having been
enacted will apply in the absence of any savings clause. To
overcome such a drastic effect, the legislature enacted Section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Even the Law
Commission’s report, relied upon by Mr Adik, specifically
states that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was
enacted to make a departure from the common law Rule
referred to above.

99. Therefore, unless the Respondents can establish that

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, applies or that
there was any savings clause in the CGST Act or in the
Notification, based merely on Clause 1(2) or the GST Council
minutes, the pending proceedings that had not attained
finality cannot be held as saved. The Clause relied upon is not
a savings clause. It does not save pending proceedings.

100. Clause 1(2) does not prevent the lapsing of inconclusive

proceedings or even orders that have not attained finality.
Only transactions “past and closed” are not affected. This
protection for “past and closed” transactions is not on account
of Clause 1(2) now relied upon, but because of the common
law principle that remains intact where the provisions of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act do not apply or where
there are no savings clauses in the repealing rules or the

Page 97 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

parent legislation under which such rules may have been

enacted.

101. Furthermore, we are inclined to agree with Mr

Sridharan’s submission that no general retrospective effect
was given to the notification dated 08 October 2024 (unless
otherwise indicated) because otherwise an argument that
even the transactions past and closed have no immunity might
have been possible. Such an argument would have exposed
the Revenue to excessive demands for refunds even in respect
of past and closed transactions. However, based on Clause
1(2) of the notification dated 08 October 2024, the pending
proceedings or the proceedings where the impugned orders
had not attained finality cannot be protected or saved.

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON SECTION 166 OF THE CGST

ACT (EIGHTH ISSUE)
102. Section 166 of the CGST Act reads as follows: -

“166. Laying of rules, regulations and notifications.— Every

rule made by the Government, every regulation made by the
Board and every notification issued by the Government under
this Act, shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made or
issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session, for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately
following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid,
both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or
regulation or in the notification, as the case may be, or both
Houses agree that the rule or regulation or the notification
should not be made, the rule or regulation or notification, as
the case may be, shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,
however, that any such modification or annulment shall be
without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done

Page 98 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

under that rule or regulation or notification, as the case may

be.”

103. M P Jain & S N Jain in “Principles of Administrative

Law”, 8th edition, in Chapter 5, dealing with legislative and
other controls over delegated legislation, have referred to the
“laying procedure” at paragraph 5.1.2 (pages 160 to 164). At
sub-paragraph (iii), the authors have observed as follows: -

“(iii) There is a third variety of laying procedure, viz.,

laying with a negative procedure. This formula envisages that
the legislature may annul the draft rules laid before it. Now a
days, the laying formula occurs more frequently in the Central
statutes and a standard formula has been evolved for this
purpose. It runs as follows:
Every rule made under this Act shall be laid, as
soon as may be, after it is made before each House of
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of
thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in
two or more successive sessions, and if, before the
expiry of the session immediately following the session
or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree
in making any modification in the rule or both Houses
agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall
thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be
of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any
such modification or, annulment shall be without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
under that rule.
The highlights of this formula are as follows:
(i) This formula requires the rules to be laid before each
House of Parliament as soon as possible. There is no
time-frame within which the rules are to be laid
before the House after their promulgation.
(ii) The laying procedure envisaged by the above formula
is laying with a negative resolution.
(iii) The rules are to be laid for 30 sessions days. This
period may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions.

Page 99 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

(iv) Before the expiry of the session immediately following

the session or the successive session or in two or more
successive sessions.
(v) The rules come into force as soon as they are made
and the laying procedures effect thereafter.
(vi) If any modification is made in the rules, or they are
annulled, by the Houses then the rules operate in the
modified form or be of no effect, in the future.
(vii) If they are annulled then they will cease to exist from
the date annulment.
(viii) The rules can be annulled or modified only when both
Houses agree.
(ix) In this formula, the initiative to move a resolution to
annul or modify the rules has to be taken by the
members of the House. The Government is under no
obligation to take any initiative in this regard.
(x) In this ‘laying’ formula, there is no time-frame within
which the rules have to be laid before the Houses
after their promulgation. The phraseology used is “as
soon as may be” after the rules are made. In practice,
often the rules are laid long after they are made. This
reduces the effectiveness of the Parliamentary control
over delegated legislation36.
The laying formula as contained, in the above provision is
regarded as being of directory nature and not mandatory.”

104. From the above, or even otherwise from the plain

reading of Section 166 of the CGST Act, firstly, it is not
possible to accept the contention that the notification dated 8
October 2024 was not effective until the Rules were laid

36
See, supra, under "Procedural ultra vires. "In Prohibition & Excise Supdt v
Toddy Toppers Co-op Society, (2003) 12 SCC 738, para 12, p 747: AIR 2004
SC 658, while dealing with challenge to validity of rule 24 of Andhra Pradesh
Excise (Arrack & Toddy Licences, General Conditions) Rules, 1969 which
enabled the competent officers to send samples of arrack or toddy to
independent laboratories for chemical examination, the Supreme Court
interpreted the requirement of laying down of a subordinate legislation as
contained in section 72(4) of AP Excise Act, 1968 as directory. See further
Bank of India v OP Swarnakar , (2003) 2 SCC 721, para 124, p 767: AIR 2003
SC 858. See also, Veneet Agrawal V UOI, (2007) 13 SCC 721, para 124, p 767
“ AIR 2003 SC 858. See also, Veneet Agrawal v UOI, (2007) 13 SCC 113 paras
16 & 17 : AIR 2008 SC 351.

Page 100 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

before the Parliament and approved by the Parliament

through a resolution. Such a contention is neither borne out
by the plain reading of Section 166 of the CGST Act, nor do
any precedents support such a construction. Such a
construction entirely ignores the expression “thereafter” in
Section 166. Such a construction would, in fact, render a
savings clause, upon which the Respondents rely, completely
otiose or redundant. If the Rules were to come into force
only after the Parliament approved them, there was no
question of doing or saving anything previously done under
such Rules.

105. An Analysis of Section 166 would show that its first leg
provides for laying of Rules, Regulations and Notifications
before the Parliament for a total period of 30 days. The
second leg of Section 166 provides for consequences where
both houses agree in making any modification to the Rules,
Regulations and Notifications so laid or agree that such Rules,
Regulations and Notifications should not have been made. In
such an eventuality, the laid Rules, Regulations and
Notifications as the case may be, shall “ thereafter” have effect
only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may
be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that Rule or Regulation or Notification,
as the case may be.

Page 101 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

106. Therefore, for the second leg of Section 166 to apply,

the Rules, Regulations and Notifications must be either
modified or annulled by the Parliament. Where no such
modification or annulment is made, the second leg of Section
166, including the so-called savings clause therein, would not
even apply. The so-called savings clause only saves the acts
done under the Rules, Regulations and Notifications between
the date of their publication and the date of modification or
annulment. This also negates Mr Adik’s contention about the
Rules not coming into force until they were placed before the
Parliament and the Parliament specifically approved the same.

107. In any event, it is doubtful whether any modification or

annulment by the parliament by passing a resolution as
contemplated by Section 166 of the CGST Act can be elevated
to the status of a Central Act as contemplated by Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act. The argument based on Section 166
also contradicts the Respondents’ earlier argument about the
Central Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Rules,
2024, coming into force from 08 October 2024.

108. The argument based on Section 166 of the CGST Act,

apart from being misconceived, was attempted to be
developed merely by claiming, without any pleading, that the
notification dated 08 October 2024 was laid before
Parliament. No details were provided about such laying. No
information was given on whether the same was approved,
modified, or annulled.

Page 102 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

109. In Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd & Ors Vs State of Haryana 37,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that clauses like Section
166 of the CGST Act, insofar as the requirement of laying
before the parliament is concerned, are only directory and not
mandatory.

110. In Veneet Agrawal Vs Union of India & Ors38, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was concerned with an identical provision in
Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act,
1992. The allegation was about non-compliance, since the
Rules and Regulations which were impugned had not been
laid before the house for the period stipulated under the said
Section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after relying upon Atlas
Cycle Industries Ltd (supra) and several other decisions, held
that such a provision was not mandatory but only directory.
Costs were imposed on the Petitioners because such
contentions were being repeatedly raised even though the
same had been rejected in a series of past decisions.

MISCELLANEOUS

111. As noted above, the decision of the Gujarat High Court

in Messers Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and of the
Uttarakhand High Court in Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers (supra)
also take the view that the repeal of the impugned Rules vide
Notification dated 08 October 2024 is neither backed by any
savings clauses nor do the provisions of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act apply to such omission or repeal.

37
(1979) 2 SCC 1996
38
(2007) 13 SCC 116

Page 103 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Accordingly, in both these matters, the Petitioners were

granted relief by way of quashing pending proceedings and
orders that had not attained any finality because the
challenges against them were pending before the authorities
under the Act or the High Court.

112. Mr. Sridharan also relied upon Pasupuleti

Venkateshwarlu Vs The Motor & General Traders 39 and Majati
Subbarao Vs. P.V.K. Krishna Rao40 in support of his contention
that the Court is bound to take note of subsequent events.
This was in the context of the omission of the impugned Rules
vide Notification dated 08 October 2024 during the pendency
of the show cause notice proceedings or the proceedings
challenging the orders made, alleging non-compliance with
the requirements of the impugned Rules. None of the
Respondents even contested this principle. The learned
counsel for the Respondents only contended that the omission
was prospective and, in any event, the so-called savings
clauses saved the pending proceedings or the orders that were
impugned in these Petitions. This contention about
prospectivity is already considered earlier in the context of the
argument based on Clause 1(2) of the Notification dated 08
October 2024.

113. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Vianaar Homes

Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was delivered in a factual context not
comparable to these matters. Besides, the focus of the decision
was on the provisions of Section 24 of the General Clauses Act
because that was a case of repeal of the Rules framed under
an earlier legislation, which stood repealed by the advent of
39
AIR 1975 SC 1409
40
AIR 1989 SC 2187

Page 104 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

the CGST Act. To such a repeal, the Court held that the
provisions of Section 174 of the CGST Act would apply, and
the savings clause in Section 174(2) would save the earlier
Rules. The Court noted that as we transitioned to a new
system, the Legislature ensured that the repealed laws were
saved for a smooth transition. It provided an extensive saving
clause under the CGST Act and even added sub-section (3) to
Section 174 to ensure the general application of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, notwithstanding what was provided
under the saving in Section 174(2).

114. In these matters, we are not concerned with the savings

of any of the Acts or Rules that were repealed under Section
174(1) of the CGST Act. Besides, we are also not concerned
with repeal followed by re-enactment for the provisions of
Section 24 of the General Clauses Act to be applicable.
Therefore, the decision in Vianaar Homes Pvt. Ltd. (supra) can
be of no assistance to the Respondents in these matters.

115. In Jayanthilal Amarathlal (supra), relied upon by Mr.

Subir Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act apply to a
repeal of Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 as the re-enacted
Gold (Control) Act does not exhibit a difference or a contrary
intention, the proceedings initiated under the repealed law
must be held to continue. That is not the issue in any of these
matters, and therefore, based upon Jayanthilal Amarathlal
(supra), the Petitioners cannot be denied the relief that they
seek in these Petitions.

116. The 2024 Amendment Rules or the CGST Act do not

include any savings clause to protect pending proceedings

Page 105 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

resulting from the omission of the impugned Rules. Mr

Sridharan referenced a list of nearly 64 Notifications issued by
the Central or State Government, which amended or omitted
Rules and included explicit savings clauses. This indicates that
the Central Government was aware of the legal obligation to
include a savings clause where Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act might not apply. Therefore, it appears that not
including a savings clause in the Notification dated 08
October 2024, unlike the 64 Notifications mentioned above,
was not an accident but a conscious choice, made to benefit
export, import, and trade.

117. The argument about the impugned show-cause notices

being issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act and such
notices surviving because this section had not been omitted or
repealed also cannot be accepted. The only allegation in the
impugned show cause notices concerns the alleged violation
of the requirements of the impugned rules. There are no other
allegations, as was asserted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioners and not disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents, though a specific opportunity was granted to
them. Therefore, if the impugned rules are omitted or
repealed without any savings clauses or the protection of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, nothing would survive in
such notices. Such notices cannot be saved based on the
argument now advanced.

118. In the case of Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah (Supra) a

charge was framed against the accused for offences
punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excises and salt Act,
1944 read with Rule 52(A), 56(A), 173(G), 9(2) of the

Page 106 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q)read with Section 11(A)

of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On the ground that
Rule 56 was omitted and such omission was not backed by
any savings clause, the accused was discharged. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court reversed the High Court by holding that the
charge against the accused (Respondent) was that of evasion
of duty. This was relatable to Section 9(1)(b) of the Central
Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the omission of a
procedural rule for availing the credit cannot, in any manner,
affect the charge. The prosecution could not be deprived of
the opportunity to prove evasion, which was itself an offence.

119. The decision in Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah (Supra) is

distinguishable. There, the charge was framed under the main
Section, which was never omitted or repealed. In the present
case, the allegation against the Petitioners relates to the
violation of the impugned Rules, which have been omitted or
repealed without any savings clause. Therefore, based upon
Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah (supra), the relief claimed by the
Petitioners cannot be denied.

120. In Milton Polyplas (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court found
that a saving clause was indeed provided. However, the
CESTAT ignored the savings clause as well as the provisions of
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act on the premise that they
apply only to a repeal or not to an omission of any Central Act
or Regulation. Since this position was contrary to the law laid
down in the case of Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Shree
Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra), this Court answered the
substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and
against the assessee. Such an issue is not involved in the

Page 107 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

present batch of matters. Neither party have argued that there

is any distinction between an omission and a repeal in the
context of the applicability of section 6 of the General Clauses
Act.

121. In the case of State of Punjab Vs Mohar Singh (supra),

the issue concerned the application of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act to an Ordinance. Again, that is not the
issue involved in any of these Petitions.

RELIEFS

122. Upon comprehensive review of all the above aspects, we

hold that, following the omission or repeal of the impugned
Rules, i.e., Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules via
Notification dated 08 October 2024, and in the absence of any
saving clauses or the benefit of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act, all pending proceedings—such as undisposed
show cause notices, orders disposing of show cause notices
issued after 08 October 2024, or even orders made before 08
October 2024 but not yet finalised due to appeals before the
Appellate Authorities or challenges before this Court, thus not
constituting “transactions past and closed”—are not preserved
and will stand lapsed.

123. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned show

cause notices and the impugned orders in original.
Furthermore, we also quash and set aside the orders refusing
some of the Petitioners’ applications for refund, restore those
applications to the files of the relevant Authorities, and direct
the Authorities to consider and dispose of such refund
applications in light of the declaration made by us above

Page 108 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::

 JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+[Link]

regarding the omission and repeal of the impugned Rules.

This process must be completed within four months of the
date of this order’s upload, after providing the Petitioners with
a fair opportunity to be heard.

124. The Rule is made absolute in all these Petitions in the

above terms without any order for costs. In view of the
disposal of these Petitions, all pending Interim Applications
and Chamber Orders will not survive and are disposed of.

125. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this

order.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

After pronouncement .

126. At this stage, Mr Mishra prays for a stay of the

Judgment and Order that we have just pronounced. In most of
these Petitions, there was interim relief operating in favour of
the Petitioners during the pendency of the Petitions even
before the impugned show cause notices or orders were
declared as lapsed. Now that we have declared the impugned
show cause notices and orders as lapsed, there is no question
of granting any stay which would have the effect of reviving
those orders. Therefore, the motion for stay is rejected.
Besides, we have not directed any immediate refund. We have
only direced to Respondents to dispose of refund applications
of some of the Petitioners within four months.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

Page 109 of 109

::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2025 [Link] :::