The Rajasthan High Court disposed of challenges to Rule 96(10), noting that CBIC’s office memorandum of 24 Aug 2026 accepted the Supreme Court ruling, and directed fresh refund decisions within twelve weeks.
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of challenges to Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules in terms of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the omission of the rule, without a saving clause, applies to all proceedings pending when it was omitted, and of CBIC’s office memorandum accepting that ruling. [Sutlej Textiles and Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3173-HC(Rajasthan)-GST]
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain decided three writ petitions questioning Rule 96(10), which denied refund of IGST paid on exports where the supplier had availed Notification No. 41/2017-IGST.
The Bench relied on M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 24550 of 2025), where the Supreme Court applied Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd v. Union of India and held that the GST Council’s recommendation for prospective omission was only advisory. Rule 96(10) was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 8 Oct 2024.
It quoted the office memorandum dated 24 Aug 2026 of the GST Policy Wing, issued with the approval of Member (GST), CBIC, accepting the judgment dated 6 Aug 2026. The memorandum notes that saving clauses were added to the Central Excise and Customs Acts after Kolhapur Canesugar, and that without such a clause in GST law, omission of a rule “in essence takes retrospective effect.”
The petitioners may file refund applications, which the competent authority must decide strictly in accordance with law within twelve weeks. The Bench directed that no prejudice be caused to the petitioners by the impugned or earlier orders, and that their refund applications be decided afresh.
2026-juristway.com-3173-HC(Rajasthan)-GST
