Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
RANJITH LAL. S. – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4916 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM, SMT.SHEEJA D.K., SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
For the Respondents: ADV.V.GIREESHKUMAR, SC
The reliance on an ultra vires rule invalidates administrative orders under tax legislation.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 Order-in-Original issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, alleging reliance on the ultra vires Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, referencing a prior judgment. The court finds merit in this claim, previously declaring Rule 96(10) as ultra vires. Issues concerning the legal sustainability of the order are addressed, ultimately leading to its quashing as it relied solely on the invalid rule.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges the order-in-original based on the invalid rule. (Para 1) |
| 2. court agrees on the merits of the submission regarding the ultra vires rule. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act, challenging Ext.P1 Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the GST Act. The specific challenge raised by the petitioner is on the ground that the assessment was made solely relying upon the Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules which is found to be ultra vires of the Section 16 of the IGST Act , by this Court as per the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. (C).No.17447/2023 (M/S. Sance Laboratories Private Limited v.
Union of India & Others) dated 10.10.2024.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find merits in the said submission. On going through the observations made by this Court in the decision referred to above, I find that, the Rule 96(10) was declared as ultra vires of the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act . In such circumstances, in the light of the above, an interference is required.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1 order, holding that the same is not legally sustainable, since it is solely issued based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which is already declared as ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act , as per the judgment in M/S Sance Laboratories Private Limited's case (supra).
Sd/-
