IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9511 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9647 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

RADHADARSHAN PETROPACK LLP Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

ASHVA LEGAL ADVISORS LLP(13473) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.AVINASH PODDAR(9761) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS ANCHAL A PODDAR(13386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR AKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Poddar, that these matters were left out from the group of matters i.e. Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters which have been decided by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2025, and hence the same may be disposed of in terms of the Judgment dated

20.11.2025 which is as under.

“5. It is not in dispute that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in a group of matters being Special Civil Application No.22519 of 2019, vide judgment dated 13th June, 2025, has dealt with the issue with regard to Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2025, repealing Rule 96(10) of the Rules without any saving clause, and has held as under :

“203. In view of above conspectus of law, it appears that the recommendations of the GST Council to omit Rule 96(10) prospectively would apply to all the pending proceedings and cases. However, the contention on behalf of the Revenue that the petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the validity of Rule 96(10) cannot be said to be pending proceedings is without any basis because the petitioners have also challenged the show cause notices as well as orders-in-original passed by the respondents by invoking Rule 96(10) for rejecting the refund claims of the petitioners and therefore, it can be said that these petitions are nothing but pending proceedings before the Court which has not achieved finality when the Notification No.20/2024 came into force with effect from 8th October, 2024.

204. By Notification No.20/2024 Rules, 2024 have been notified and as per Rule 10 of the said Rules, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules has been omitted with prospective effect. This would give rise to three situations, firstly, whether the same would be applicable retrospectively, or secondly, prospectively or thirdly, same would be applicable prospectively but also to “pending proceedings”. As discussed here-in-above, Rule 10 of Rules, 2024 is applicable prospectively and the same also would be applicable to pending proceedings.

205. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2024 would be applicable to all the pending proceedings/cases meaning thereby that Rule 96(10) would stand omitted prospectively but applicable to pending proceedings/cases where final adjudication has not taken place.

206. Therefore, in view of foregoing reasons, the omission of Rule 96(10) would apply to all the proceedings/cases/petitions which are pending for adjudication either before this Court or before the respondent adjudicating authority and no further proceedings are required to be carried forward and petitioners would be entitled to maintain refund claims of IGST paid on export of goods.

207. In view of above findings, as Rule 96(10) would not be applicable to the pending proceedings, in view of omission of Rule 96(10) by Notification No.20/2024 with effect from 8th October, 2024, the question of challenge to the