Summary of Judgment
Hikal Limited & Others v. Union of India
COURT
Bombay High Court
CITATION
2025:BHC-AS:40175-DB
PRONOUNCED
11.09.2025
The Challenge
Manufacturers and exporters challenged the validity of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
THE RESTRICTION
These rules imposed strict conditions on IGST refunds for exporters who had availed specific exemptions or concessional rates on imports.
The Turning Point
NOTIFICATION DATE
08 Oct 2024
Central GST (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 issued.
Action: Omission
Both Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) were deleted entirely.
CRITICAL DETAIL
No “Savings Clause” was included.
Nothing to protect pending show-cause notices or orders.
Core Legal Question
“Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act save pending proceedings?”
The Revenue Argued
That Section 6 GCA applies because the Rules were made under a Central Act.
✓ The Court Ruled
NO.
Section 6 applies only to “Central Acts” or “Regulations”, not subordinate “Rules”.
Relied Upon Precedents
Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Director of Enforcement
SC CONSTITUTION BENCH
S.6 GCA does not apply to repeal of Rules.
Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India
SC CONSTITUTION BENCH
Affirmed Rayala Corporation; test for pending proceedings.
FINAL JUDGMENT
Rule Made Absolute
- ▪ All pending notices & non-final orders under Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) are QUASHED.
- ▪ Proceedings declared to have LAPSED upon omission.
- ▪ Petitioners entitled to maintain refund claims without omitted restrictions.
