When a Deleted Rule Still Haunts Refund Files
GST refund disputes often appear technical, involving forms, circulars, notifications, export conditions, formula restrictions and procedural objections. Yet behind these technical details, the real issue is often simpler. Can the Department continue to deny a refund by relying on a rule that has already been removed from the law? This question was considered by the Gujarat High Court in Alstom Transport India Limited v. Union of India and Others, 2026-VIL-664-GUJ, R/Special Civil Application No.3036 of 2025, dated 02.07.2026.
The judgment concerns the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, with effect from 08.10.2024, by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024. The omission was not accompanied by a saving clause. That one fact gave the case its real force. A saving clause would have preserved the operation of the omitted rules for pending proceedings, pending notices or pending refund disputes. In its absence, the Court treated the omitted rules as unavailable for deciding live refund proceedings.
The practical importance of this principle is enormous. Export refunds are not ordinary claims for money. They represent blocked working capital in a tax system otherwise designed to make exports zero-rated. If an exporter is entitled to a refund, the delay directly affects business liquidity. Therefore, when the rule that formed the basis of refund denial has itself disappeared from the legal framework, courts must decide whether the old objection can still be kept alive. Alstom Transport answers that question in favour of taxpayers where the matter is still pending and has not become past and closed.
The Two Refund Restrictions That Created the Litigation
To appreciate the judgment, one must first understand the two provisions involved. Rule 89(4B) of the GGST Rules, 2017,dealt with refund computation in cases where inputs were procured under specified concessional or exemption notifications. In simple terms, it restricted the refund formula where the law believed the taxpayer had already received a benefit at the input stage. Rule 96(10), on the other hand, restricted the refund of IGST paid on exports in certain cases where the exporter or supplier had availed specified benefits. Both provisions were intended to prevent what the administration viewed as a double benefit.
However, the working of these rules gave rise to considerable difficulty. Export transactions often involve multiple suppliers, varied procurement routes and different exemption notifications. In many cases, the refund was blocked even where the exporter believed there was no real double benefit. The dispute then shifted from the core principle of zero-rating to the technical application of restrictive refund rules. This created uncertainty for exporters, especially where refund orders, show cause notices or writ petitions remained pending for long periods.
The omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) by Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024 changed the legal landscape. The rule-making authority did not merely amend the provisions. It omitted them. More importantly, it did not say that pending proceedings would continue under the omitted rules. This silence became the centre of the controversy. For taxpayers, it meant that a live refund claim should be decided under the law as it stands after the omission. For the Department, the natural argument was that the omission should operate only prospectively and should not disturb earlier proceedings. The Gujarat High Court had to examine this distinction carefully.
The Alstom Dispute: A Pending Refund Meets an Omitted Rule
At Alstom Transport India Limited, a refund was denied by an Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2025, relying on Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017. By then, Rule 89(4B) had already been omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The petitioner therefore argued that a refund order passed after the omission could not be sustained, as its foundation was a rule that no longer existed and had not been saved for pending matters.
At the outset, both sides pointed out that the issue had already been considered by the Gujarat High Court in earlier matters. Particular reference was made to M/s JJ Plastalloy Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, 2025 (12) TMI 311 (Gujarat High Court) = 2025-VIL-1252-GUJ, dated 20.11.2025, and to the subsequent judgment dated 28.11.2025 in Special Civil Application No.12321 of 2023 and allied matters. Those decisions considered the legal effect of the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without any saving clause.
The Gujarat High Court therefore followed the earlier line of reasoning. It did not treat the case as a fresh debate on the wisdom of the omitted rules. It focused on the legal consequences of the omission. Since the refund denial was based on Rule 89(4B), and the rule was no longer available for pending proceedings, the impugned order and consequential action were quashed. The refund claim was required to be processed in accordance with law, without applying the omitted restriction.
Prospective Omission Does Not Mean Pending Cases Are Frozen in the Past
A key legal principle emerging from this judgment is the distinction between retrospective operation and application to pending proceedings. The Court did not hold that Notification No.20/2024-Central Tax operates retrospectively in the ordinary sense. It did not rewrite the past. It did not say that the omitted rules never existed. The point was narrower but more powerful. Once a rule is omitted prospectively and there is no saving clause, pending proceedings cannot normally be decided as if the omitted rule were still in force.
This distinction is useful for officers and professionals. Retrospective operation means that a provision is treated as having effect from an earlier date. Application to pending proceedings is different. A proceeding that is still pending is not a closed chapter. It is a live dispute awaiting final determination. When the authority decides such a dispute after the omission of a rule, it must ask whether the old rule has been preserved for that purpose. If the notification omitting the rule contains no saving clause, the authority cannot assume that the omitted rule continues to govern pending refund claims.
The underlying legal principle is therefore not based on sympathy or equity alone. It is rooted in the nature of statutory repeal and omission. A rule is a creature of law. It has force because the law gives it force. When the rule is removed and no saving language is provided, its continuing force cannot be presumed in relation to matters that are not yet finally concluded. This is why Alstom Transport is important beyond its immediate facts. It provides a disciplined method for dealing with omitted GST provisions in pending disputes.
The Past-and-Closed Test Protects Finality Without Freezing Live Rights
The expression "past and closed" is central to this line of decisions. A matter is past and closed when it has reached finality. For example, if a refund rejection has been accepted, no appeal or writ is pending, and the time for challenge has expired, the matter may be treated as finally concluded. In such a case, omission of the rule may not automatically reopen the old refund dispute. This protects the principle of finality, which is also important in tax administration.
On the other hand, where a show cause notice, adjudication, appeal, or writ petition is pending, the matter is not past and closed. The taxpayer is still contesting the denial, and the authority or court is still required to decide the legal rights of the parties. In such a situation, the omitted rule cannot be treated as if it remains alive unless the omission notification expressly saves it. This is the balance achieved by the Gujarat High Court.
The principle is fair to both sides. It does not open every old refund matter without limit. At the same time, it does not permit the Department to continue relying on a deleted provision in a dispute that is still alive.
The Bombay High Court's Reasoning Gives the Principle Deeper Roots
The Gujarat High Court also referred to the broader reasoning of the Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited and Others v. Union of India, 2025 (9) TMI 806 -Bombay High Court. That judgment examined the legal effect of repeal or omission without a saving clause. The Bombay High Court discussed the general principle that when a provision is repealed or omitted, it is normally treated as removed from the statute book, except in relation to matters that are already past and closed or expressly saved.
The broader principle was explained with reference to the settled discussion on repeal and saving provisions in Justice G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation . The essence of that discussion is simple. When a statutory provision is repealed or omitted, it normally ceases to operate from the date of repeal or omission, unless the legislature or rule-making authority expressly preserves its effect through a saving clause. Matters that are already finally concluded may remain undisturbed, but live proceedings require a clear legal basis to continue under the old provision. Therefore, in the absence of a saving clause, an omitted rule should not ordinarily be used to decide pending refund disputes.
This approach is not based on any assumption that every omitted provision automatically disappears for all purposes. The correct enquiry is more careful. One must see whether the matter has already become final, whether any saving clause preserves the old provision, and whether the proceeding was still pending when the provision was omitted. If the dispute is still alive and no saving clause exists, the old rule should not be artificially continued merely because the Department had earlier relied upon it. This is the principle which makes the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) relevant to pending refund matters
A Saving Clause Is the Bridge Between Old Law and Live Disputes
A saving clause is not a drafting formality. It is the legal device by which an omitted or repealed provision is kept alive for specified pending rights, liabilities, notices, orders or proceedings. Without such a clause, the old provision cannot ordinarily continue to control live disputes after its omission.
In the present case, Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 08.10.2024 omitted Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) without preserving the pending proceedings. That silence was decisive. If the Government intended pending refund disputes to continue under the omitted rules, it could have expressly said so. In the absence of such language, the omitted rules could not be supplied back into the law by interpretation.
The practical lesson is clear. Whenever a GST rule is amended, substituted or omitted, the authority must examine not only the old rule but also the manner in which it was removed. If there is no saving clause, reliance on the omitted rule in a live proceeding becomes legally vulnerable.
Refund Processing Must Follow the Law as It Stands
At Alstom Transport, the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2025 and the consequential action were quashed because the refund had been denied by applying the omitted Rule 89(4B). The refund claim was required to be processed under the law as it stood after the omission of the rule.
This does not mean that a refund must be granted automatically. The Department may still verify other valid statutory conditions under the CGST Act, the IGST Act and the applicable rules. However, if the only ground for denial is Rule 89(4B) or Rule 96(10), and the matter is still pending, the omitted provision cannot remain the basis of rejection.
The position becomes especially important where the taxpayer has kept the dispute alive through a writ petition or other pending challenge. Such matters cannot be treated as finally closed merely because they relate to an earlier refund period.
Zero-Rating Needs Refund Certainty
The judgment also fits within the broader design of zero-rated exports under GST. Export refunds are not casual concessions; they are the statutory method by which exports are kept free from domestic tax burden.
Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) operated as restrictions on refund entitlement. Once such restrictions were omitted without a saving clause, they could not be extended by administrative interpretation. A refund restriction must rest on clear legal authority. If that authority is withdrawn, a pending refund claim should not be rejected by continuing to apply the withdrawn rule.
The Practical Test Hidden Inside the Ruling
The judgment offers a simple practical test. First, see whether the refund was denied under Rule 89(4B) or Rule 96(10). Second, check whether the matter was still pending when these rules were omitted on 08.10.2024. Third, verify whether any saving clause preserved the old rules. Finally, examine whether the Department has any independent ground, apart from the omitted provisions, to question the refund.
For exporters and professionals, the key is to show from the record that the dispute was not past and closed. For officers, the key is to identify a presently valid legal basis before rejecting the claim. If the omitted rule is the only ground, the rejection becomes legally vulnerable.
A Dead Rule Cannot Decide a Live Refund
Alstom Transport converts a technical refund dispute into a clear rule-of-law principle. A deleted refund restriction cannot govern a pending claim unless the law expressly preserves it. The judgment does not reopen matters that have truly become final; it protects only disputes that are still alive.
For senior officers and professionals, the takeaway is straightforward. The date of omission, the absence of a saving clause, the live status of the proceeding, and the exact basis of refund denial are all decisive. A refund claim must be decided by the law in force, not by the memory of a rule that no longer exists.
CAclubindia
