Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
RANJITH LAL. S. – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLLAM DIVISION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4985 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM, SMT.SHEEJA D.K., SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
For the Respondents: SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR
A rule found ultra vires cannot be the basis for an order in original under GST laws.
Headnote:This writ petition is filed under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act, challenging Ext.P1 Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the GST Act based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, which was declared ultra vires of Section 16 of the IGST Act (M/S Sance Laboratories Private Limited v. Union of India). The court found merit in the challenge and stressed the rule's invalidity, quashing the order as legally unsustainable.
Result: The petition is disposed of by quashing Ext.P1 order as it lacks legal sustainability due to reliance on an ultra vires rule.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner challenges the assessment based on rule declared ultra vires. (Para 1) |
| 2. court finds merit in the petitioner’s challenge. (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 C GST Rules which is found to be ultra vires of 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 of Section 16 of the IGST Act as per the judgment in M/S Sance Laboratories Private Limited's case (supra).
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
