The Karnataka High Court has applied the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling in M/s Goodluck India Limited (Civil Appeal Nos. 10261–10435 of 2026, decided 06.08.2026) to quash a show cause notice issued to Shilpa Medicare Limited under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, holding that the omission of Rule 96(10) by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax (effective 08.10.2024) without any saving clause obliterates the provision entirely and precludes any proceedings based on it — including those pending on the date of omission. The ruling, by Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar in Writ Petition No. 201122 of 2025 (T-Res) (decided 04.08.2026), follows an unbroken chain of High Court decisions on this point and is now definitively confirmed by the Supreme Court's intervention.

Shilpa Medicare had been availing IGST refunds on exports under Rule 96 while simultaneously procuring inputs under exemption-based notifications falling within the clauses of Rule 96(10). The department issued an SCN dated 18.01.2024 proposing to deny/recover the refunds. The company challenged the SCN before the Karnataka HC in 2025, relying on the Kerala High Court's judgment in Sance Laboratories Private Limited (which had struck down Rule 96(10) as manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act) and on the subsequent omission of the rule by Notification 20/2024.

The court found that the coordinate bench judgment in M/s Hikal Limited v. Union of India (W.P. No. 15251 of 2020, decided 09.12.2025) directly and squarely covered the petitioner's case. In Hikal Ltd., a detailed analysis of the Kerala, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Bombay and Delhi High Court rulings had concluded that Rule 96(10) stands obliterated from the statute book as of 08.10.2024 without any saving clause, and that all proceedings — including pending show cause notices, orders and appeals — stand lapsed. Following Hikal Ltd., the SCN and all further proceedings were quashed. The Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in Goodluck India (decided two days later, 06.08.2026) places this position beyond any further doubt.

For practitioners: any SCN or demand order that survives purely on the strength of Rule 96(10) and has not become a "transaction past and closed" (final judgment attained) is now clearly unsustainable. The window for Revenue to argue otherwise has closed.

2026-juristway.com-2272-HC(Karnataka)-GST  |  High Court of Karnataka | W.P. No. 201122 of 2025 (T-Res)  |  04.08.2026