Omission of GST Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) Without Savings Clause Causes Pending Proceedings Under Such Rules to Lapse


Last updated: 26 September 2025

Court :
Bombay High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hikal Limited v. Union of India and Ors. [Writ Petition No. 78 OF 2025, order dated September 11, 2025] held that the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without any savings clause to protect pending proceedings results in 'such pending proceedings lapsing' and no longer being sustainable, as the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act do not apply to repeals or omissions caused by subordinate legislation such as Rules.

Citation :
Writ Petition No. 78 OF 2025, order dated September 11, 2025

You have reached daily limit of 2 Free Judgements. To view this or other Judgements please subscribe to CCI PRO :

GST Plus

Stay updated! Stay ads free

Browse CAclubindia ads free.
Latest updates on WA.
Daily E-Newsletter and much more.

CCI PRO annual subscription :

Original Price : INR 2999/-

Offer Price : INR 1999/-

Duration : 1 year
(Prices Inclusive of GST)


Know More

Note: If you are a PRO member already, please click here to login (for ad free experience)
 

CCI Pro

Bimal Jain
Published in GST
Views : 33
downloaded 57 times
Share Report Abuse
Comments

CAclubindia's WhatsApp Groups Link

Other Latest Judgments

View More Judgments »


CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Subscribe Now

Trending Online Classes

view all classess

Follow us

Browse by Category