M/S GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, applies to all pending proceedings. The Court relied on the principle that the repeal or deletion of a provision obliterates it from the statute book as if it had never existed, unless a saving clause is incorporated. The Court noted that the GST Council's recommendation for prospective omission was advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority. Since no saving clause was introduced when Rule 96(10) was omitted, the intention was to bring an end to unnecessary complications in all proceedings, including pending ones. The Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment and directed that copies of the order be sent to all High Courts to bring closure to such litigation.
What were the facts?
The Union of India and the Department challenged a High Court judgment that held the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, applicable to all pending proceedings. The assessee's Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenged the vires and validity of Rule 96(10) itself, which the High Court had not considered as it applied the omission to all pending cases. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in most matters, while two specific SLPs were dismissed as infructuous. The core dispute revolved around whether the omission of Rule 96(10) benefited assessees in pending refund claims for integrated tax paid on exports, allowing them to claim refunds without the restrictions imposed by the omitted sub-rule.
What were the issues?
1. Whether sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, as omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024, inures to the benefit of the assessee in pending proceedings concerning refund claims of integrated tax paid on exports out of India, without the restriction under the sub-rule being applied? Assessee's Contention: The omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applies to all pending proceedings, allowing refunds without the rigor of conditions related to availing benefits under specific notifications. Revenue's Contention: The omission of Rule 96(10) should be applied prospectively, as suggested by the GST Council's recommendation, and not retrospectively to pending proceedings. The learned ASG referred to the minutes of the 54th GST Council meeting.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Rule 96(10), Rule 89(4A), Rule 89(4B), Rule 86, Rule 89
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 INSC 821 Page 1 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.24550 OF 2025
M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
With
Special Leave Petition (C) No.26411 of 2026
And
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26336 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26592 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26914-26915 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No. 53310-2025 ]
Civil Appeal Nos..............of 2026 ( @Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 26350-26391/2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26344 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26345 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10125 of 2026 ]
Page 2 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
Civil Appeal Nos.................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26597-26681 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No.................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26346 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No.................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26337 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal Nos...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.15317-15320 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal Nos..................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.26686-26687 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26930 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.18356 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No....................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26343 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No....................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26710 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No.................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26747-26749 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.20839 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal Nos...................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19077-19078 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No....................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26339 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No.................of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26341 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...........of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26858-26864 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No...............of 2026
Page 3 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
[ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26858-26864 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.21412 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No..............of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.23504 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No..............of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26916-26928 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.35275 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No..............of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26929 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.36240 of 2026 ]
Civil Appeal No..............of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.26878 of 2026 ] [ @ Diary No.16551 of 2026 ]
O R D E R
Special Leave Petition (C) No.24550 of 2025 And Special Leave Petition (C) No.26411 of 2026 :
In the above batch, the challenge by the Union of India and the Department is against the impugned judgment having held the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 to be applicable to every pending proceedings as on the date of its omission. In two SLPs by the assesses, numbered as SLP (C) No.24550 of 2025 and SLP(C) No.26411 of 2026 the challenge is against the very vires and validity of Rule 96(10), which the High Court had refused to consider, since it was applied to all pending proceedings. In the nature of the orders to be passed by us, the two SLPs referred to
Page 4 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
hereinabove are dismissed as infructuous. 2. Leave granted in the rest of the matters. 3. The issue arising is whether sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 as omitted by Notification No.20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024 would inure to the benefit of the assessee in the pending proceedings, wherein there was a claim of refund of integrated tax paid on goods and services exported out of India, to be considered without the restriction under sub-rule (10) being applied. The sub-rule having been omitted, suffice it to notice that the applicability of refund under Rule 96 was without the rigor of the person claiming such refund, having received supplies after availing benefits available by virtue of the notifications specified in clause (a) or the benefits available under the notifications specified under clause (b). The sub-rule having been omitted without a saving clause it applies squarely to all the proceedings pending, is the contention of the assessees, which was sought to be resisted by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India. 4. Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned ASG took us to the minutes of the 54th meeting of the GST Council held on 09th September, 2024 at New Delhi, fairly conceding that the recommendation is only advisory and it is not mandatory to accept it. In any event the recommendation reads as under, insofar as the omission of Rule 96(10) is concerned:
Page 5 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
“The Law Committee observed that operation of rule 96(10) is leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served and therefore recommended that rule 96(10), rule 89(4A) & rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017 may be omitted with prospective effect and that consequential amendments in clause (b) of sub-rule (4B) of rule 86, clause B, clause C and clause E of sub-rule (4) of rule 89 and Explanation (a) to sub-rule (5) of rule 89 of CGST Rules may be made.”
The emphasis on the recommendation is to persuade us to apply it prospectively only, as the Council visualised it, in so far as its application is concerned. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, relies on Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India1. Therein the question raised was the refund demanded under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which though prevalent at the time of issuance of show cause notice, before the final order was passed, it stood omitted. The newly brought in rule did not have provision for enforcing such refund. It was argued for the Department that the introduction of Section 11A, created a fiction by virtue of which proceedings under Rule 10 are deemed to be proceedings under Rule 11A of the Act. The trite principle in common law that the effect of repealing a statute or deleting a provision, is to obliterate it from the
1 (2000) 2 SCC 536
Page 6 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
statute book, as completely as if it had never existed was highlighted by this Court. An exemption, as engrafted by the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act; though Section 6 was held to be not applicable in the given circumstances of omission of a rule, should have been incorporated as a saving clause to facilitate continuance of pending proceedings despite the omission, failing which all actions would come to a stop when the omission is given effect. It was held so under paragraph 36 “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".
It was held by the Constitution Bench that if on omission of a rule, there was a provision for continuance of the proceedings already initiated or if by incorporation of a provision in the statute there was a legal device adopted, creating a fiction by virtue of which proceedings under the omitted rule could be continued; only then proceedings initiated under the omitted rule could be continued. 7. The Constitution Bench decision applies squarely in the above case. We may also observe that even going by the recommendations
Page 7 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
as extracted hereinabove, sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 was omitted because it was ‘leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served’ (sic). As fairly submitted by the learned ASG the legislature has not brought in any saving clause or a sunset clause, when sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 was omitted. The recommendation that the omission should be prospective is also advisory in nature and does not bind the rule making authority. The intention to omit the rule without any saving clause was to bring to an end, the unnecessary complications once and for all and the intention cannot be to keep alive the unnecessary complications insofar as the pending proceedings are concerned. 8. We find no good reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court. We are told that there are many proceedings pending before the various High Courts and conflicting decisions have also been passed. We hope that such proceedings would get closure with this judgment. 9. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all the High Courts. The Registry of the High Courts will ensure that the cases relating to the subject issue of omission of Rule 96(10) would be placed before the Courts having roster, after taking appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts, expeditiously
Page 8 of 8 SLP(C) No.24550 of 2025 Etc.
to bring quietus in the subject litigation. 10. The appeals are dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…..……….…….……….……. J. (J.B. PARDIWALA)
….……….…….……….……. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI AUGUST 06, 2026.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Amber Nutrition Private Limited vs. Mr Manish Chandak & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Kajaria Ceramics Limited vs. Mr Yomesh VijayaDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Marico Limited vs. Shree Uday Oil And Food Industries LLPDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Laborate Pharmaceuticals INDIA Limited vs. M/S Jmbs Healthcare Through Its PartnersDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Pharmed Limited vs. Best Biotech & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
