GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has given a quietus to the controversy surrounding exporters' eligibility to claim Integrated Tax (IGST) refunds, with their applications pending when the rule restricting such claims was omitted in 2024 without any saving clause. Providing relief to exporters, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held that exporters whose applications were pending when the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules occurred can now claim an IGST refund without any restrictions. Rule 96(10) had imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on exported goods if they had availed benefits under specified exemption schemes, including Advance Authorisation and Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) schemes. The Central Government had omitted Rule 96(10) with effect from 08.10.2024, without any saving clause. This means the Rule altogether disappeared, as if it had never existed. Therefore, the Rule would not even have any effect over the pending proceedings claiming refunds, and the exporters whose applications were pending during the omission took place would now claim refund. “…sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 was omitted because it was 'leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served' (sic). As fairly submitted by the learned ASG the legislature has not brought in any saving clause or a sunset clause, when sub-rule (10) of Rule 96 was omitted…The intention to omit the rule without any saving clause was to bring to an end, the unnecessary complications once and for all and the intention cannot be to keep alive the unnecessary complications insofar as the pending proceedings are concerned.”, the Court observed. The Court was hopeful that the aforesaid clarification would bring an end to the controversy. “We are told that there are many proceedings pending before the various High Courts and conflicting decisions have also been passed. We hope that such proceedings would get closure with this judgment.”, the Court said.Copy of the order was directed to be circulated to all the High Courts, where “the Registry of the High Courts will ensure that the cases relating to the subject issue of omission of Rule 96(10) would be placed before the Courts having roster, after taking appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts, expeditiously to bring quietus in the subject litigation.” Cause Title: M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors. (and connected cases)Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 781Click here to download orderFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Abhishek A Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Meenal Songire, Adv. Mr. Shubham Singh, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Yashovardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Mr. V Lakshmikumaran, Adv. Ms. Ananya Gupta, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Mr. L Badri Narayanan, Adv. Ms. Nitum Jain, Adv. Ms. Neha Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Swastik Mishra, Adv. Ms. Medha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parghi, Adv. Mr. Prithwiraj Choudhuri, Adv. Ms. Kausarjahan Sayed, Adv. Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR M/S Mps Legal, AOR Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mihir Mehta, Adv. Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Adv. Mr. Mohit Raval, Adv. Ms. Linzy Sharan, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bajaj, Adv. Mr. Vikas Poojary, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Ms. Kenisha Savla, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal, AOR Mr. Deepak Kumar Khokhar, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, Adv. Ms. Komal Mittal, Adv. Mr. Chaitanya G. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, AOR Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv. Ms. Nishtha Mittal, Adv. Ms. Kavya Uppal, Adv. Mr. S Dwarkanath, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Aradhe, Adv. Mr. S. Vijay Adithya, Adv. Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Rajat Vaishnaw, Adv. Mr. Prabhakar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kalra, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Bharat Ram, Adv. Mr. Ayush Sharma, AOR Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Ashwin Joseph, Adv.

GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

GST | Exporters Whose Applications Were Pending Before Omission Of Rule 96(10) Entitled To IGST Refund : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers