SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3340

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J
Techno Waxchem Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WPA 13772 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Kumar Shraff, Harsh Gadodia, Dev Kumar Agarwal
For the Respondents: Partha Sarathi Banerjee, Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Tapan Bhanja, Tanoy Chakraborty, Saptak Sanyal

The omission of a rule, in the absence of an explicit saving clause, renders the provision as if it never existed. Consequently, all pending administrative proceedings, show-cause notices, or appeals based on that rule must terminate as they cannot be considered 'transactions past and closed'.

Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 74 - Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 16 - Refund of integrated tax - Omission of subordinate legislation - Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Rules via notification dated 8th October 2024 - Effect on pending proceedings. (Paras 16, 20)

(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Omission of a rule - Absence of saving clause - Administrative proceedings pending at the time of omission - Doctrine of 'transactions past and closed' - Held, once a rule is omitted, it is deemed to have never existed; pending proceedings including show-cause notices and appeals stand lapsed in the absence of a specific saving clause. (Paras 25, 26, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order and demand notice for the recovery of integrated tax refunds, alleging that the petitioner had availed of duty-free import benefits while concurrently claiming refunds on exports, in violation of a specific rule. During the pendency of the challenge, the rule in question was omitted from the statute book by the government.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the foundation of the demand, being the contravention of an administrative rule, ceased to exist upon the rule’s omission. Relying on established precedents, the court found that the omission of a rule without a retrospective saving clause invalidates ongoing investigations and recovery proceedings initiated under that provision.

Issues: The primary issue was whether proceedings initiated under a rule that has been subsequently omitted can continue or remain enforceable against the taxpayer.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal principle is that upon the omission of a rule, the provision is obliterated as if it had never been passed. Absent a saving clause saving pending actions, the department lacks the jurisdiction to finalize or enforce demands predicated on the defunct rule, as such matters are not considered completed 'transactions past and closed'.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed.

Table of Content
1. factual context regarding export operations and impugned recovery proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 17 , 18 , 19)
2. evolution and subsequent omission of rule 96(10) of cgst rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. arguments regarding the retrospective effect of rule 96(10) omission on pending proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. legal precedents establishing that the omission of a rule terminates pending proceedings absent a saving clause. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. quashing of the impugned recovery order due to the omission of the underlying rule. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1. Challenging, inter alia, the order in original dated 4th February, 2025 issued under Section 74 (9) of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act”) and the demands raised by the respondents in form GST DRC-07 all dated 5th February, 2025 along with the summary of the orders for the tax periods April 2018 to March 2019, April 2019 to March 2020, April 2020 to March 2021 and April 2021 to March 2022, the above writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner claims to be a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is also a registered tax payer under the said Act.

3. The petitioner claims to be primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of various chemical products predominantly used in the rubber industry. In order to carry out the manufacturing process, the petitioner procures a wide range of inputs, including but not limited to Resorcinol, Stearic Acid, Formaldehyde, Phenol (PTBP), Hexamine, Palm Oil Fatty Acids, Zinc Oxide, Styrene, etc. The above inputs are procured both through domestic purchases as also by way of import from international suppliers, depending upon the availability and cost efficiency.

4. According to the petitioner, among the various inputs, Resorcinol is a critical input utilized in the manufacturing process. The procurement whereof is made through import under Advance Authorisation Scheme, which allows duty free import of inputs that are used in the manufacturing of export goods. According to the petitioner, Resorcinol is procured from two major sources, namely, Japan and China. It is while importing from China that the petitioner uses the Advance Authorisation license. According to the petitioner, the inputs procured both domestically and through imports from international markets, as mentioned above, are utilized in the manufacturing process to produce the following final products:

Sl. No. Technical Name Final Product Name
1 Technic – KR140 Modified Formaldehyde Resin
2 Technic – OSCH Oil Silica Coated Hexamine
3 Technic – RSB-II Resorcinol & Silica Blend
4 Technic – RSAM Resorcinol & Stearic Acid Melt
5 Technic – B-18S/B-19S/B-20S Resorcinol Formaldehyde Resin

5. The petitioner contends that in the manufacturing of final products listed under serial no. 3 to 5 of the table above, multiple inputs are utilized apart from Resorcinol, including but not limited to Stearic Acid, Formaldehyde, Phenol (PTBP), Hexamine etc.

6. With effect from 1st July, 2017, Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime was introduced and had been implemented by making necessary amendment in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well. Consequentially, with effect from 1st July, 2017 instead of levying and collecting additional duty of customs equal to the duty of excise chargeable on similar goods produced or manufactured in India, Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) came to be levied on imported goods, whereas the goods cleared for export were deemed to be transactions in the nature of inter-state supply of goods under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short the “IGST Act”), and therefore, IGST was levied and collected on the goods exported to the foreign countries. Originally, the rebate i.e. r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top