The Karnataka High Court Division Bench, presided over by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, has dismissed the Revenue’s writ appeal challenging the Single Judge’s order which had directed refund of Rs. 3,08,78,921 IGST by striking down Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, holding that the issue stands authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1523), which held that proceedings under an omitted rule could not be continued in the absence of a savings clause or sunset clause. The ruling in Writ Appeal No. 1523/2026 (Assistant Commissioner CGST East Division-7, Bengaluru v. Borg Warner India Technical Center Pvt. Ltd., decided 24.09.2026) follows the SC’s application of the Constitution Bench decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India (2000) 2 SCC 536.
The Revenue’s counsel himself placed the Goodluck India judgment before the court. The Supreme Court had observed that Rule 96(10) was omitted because it was ‘leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served’, that the recommendation for prospective omission was advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority, and that the intention was to bring the unnecessary complications to an end for all pending proceedings, not merely for future cases.
- 2026-juristway.com-2780-HC(Karnataka)-GST | High Court of Karnataka | Writ Appeal No. 1523/2026 | 24.09.2026
