Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
D.N.Ray
Messrs Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Draft amendment is allowed as per order dated 25.01.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No.238 of 2023.
2. This group of petitions are preferred challenging the vires of Rule 96(10) of the Central/ STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RULES , 2017 (For short “the CGST Rules”) as substituted by the Central Goods and Services Tax(12th Amendment) Rules, 2018 with effect from 9.10.2018. Prior to its substitution, Sub-rule(10) was substituted by Central Goods and Services Tax 11th Amendment Rules, 2018 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax 8th Amendment Rules, 2018 with retrospective effect from 23.10.2017.
3. As the issue arising in this group of petitions is common, the same were heard analogously.
4. Brief facts of the case giving rise this group of petitions can be summarized by stating the facts of Special Civil Application No. 2187 of 2023 emerging from the record as under:
5. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.2187 of 2023 is engaged in the business of manufacture, supply/export of conductors and Optical Fiber Ground Wires(OPGW) for several years and exports substantial quantity of finished goods manufac
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which restricted refunds of IGST on exports where benefits of certain notifications were availed, was declared void for future cases following its omission by new legis....
![Sance Laboratories Private Limited VS Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Finance [Department of Revenue] - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1148](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was declared ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act for imposing unjust restrictions on exporters' right to claim IGST refunds.
Rule 96(10) of the CGST Act was declared unconstitutional, thus quashing all related proceedings, affirming rights to refund under the IGST Act without a saving clause.
Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules is valid as it derives authority from Section 16 of the CGST Act, not Section 43A, which was never enforced.
The court ruled that the denial of a tax refund on grounds of limitation was wrong, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment, and clarified that the time limit of two years for refund applicati....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
