COMMON ORAL ORDER

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

1. When the matters are called out, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 20.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters.

2. Since the similar issue is involved, both the writ petitions are decided by this common order. The lead matter is Special Civil Application No.8472 of 2025.

3. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 issued by the respondent No.2.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The petitioner is a member of Gujarat Dyestuff Manufacturers’ Association. It is the case of the petitioner that on specific intelligence received vide letter dated 20.03.2023 from Deputy Commissioner, Customs Mundra, it was alleged that the petitioner has availed refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) violating provisions of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short “CGST Rules”). Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated and summons were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has been issued show-cause notice dated 24.08.2023, without considering reply.

5. It appears that the petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules by filing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.13581 of 2023, which has been disposed of vide judgement and order dated 13.06.2025. Thereafter, this Court in the decision dated 20.11.2025 rendered in Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters, by considering the judgement and order dated 13.06.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.22519 of 2019 has disposed of the matters by considering the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Hikal Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2025 (9) TMI 806.

6. It is undisputed and very fairly admitted by learned advocate Ms.Sancheti that the issue raised in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court.

8. In an identical issue, vide judgement and dated 20.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters this Court has held thus:

“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