Rule 96(10) Omission and IGST Export Refunds: Raj HC

Rule 96(10) Omission Covers Pending IGST Export Refund Claims: Rajasthan High Court Orders Fresh Decision in 12 Weeks

Published: 28 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of three writ petitions by Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd. challenging Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which denied refunds of IGST paid on exports where the supplier had availed Notification No. 41/2017-IGST (para 1). It acted on the Supreme Court's Goodluck India judgment, that the rule's omission without a saving clause reaches pending proceedings, and on the CBIC memorandum of 24.08.2026 accepting it (paras 2-4). Refund applications are to be decided afresh within twelve weeks (paras 5-6).

Key holdings

The challenge to Rule 96(10) was disposed of in terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Goodluck India and the CBIC memorandum of 24.08.2026 (para 4).

As quoted, the Supreme Court held the GST Council's prospective-omission recommendation advisory and found no saving clause keeping Rule 96(10) alive for pending proceedings (para 2).

The competent authority must decide the petitioners' refund applications strictly in accordance with law within twelve weeks (para 5).

The impugned and earlier orders cause the petitioners no prejudice; the refund application is to be decided afresh (para 6).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Sutlej Textiles and Industries Ltd., through its Rajasthan Textile Mills unit, filed three writ petitions at the Jaipur Bench. They challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10), as amended by Notification No. 03/2018-CT of 23.01.2018 (with retrospective effect from 23.10.2017) and Notification No. 53/2018-CT of 09.10.2018, to the extent it denies a refund of IGST paid on exports where the supplier has availed the benefit of Notification No. 41/2017-IGST (para 1). The respondents included the Union of India, the GST Council, the CBIC and Central GST authorities. When the batch was taken up, counsel for the parties placed the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goodluck India Limited before the Bench (para 2).

Court's Findings

The Bench noted that in Goodluck India the Supreme Court considered whether the omission of Rule 96(10) applies to proceedings pending on the date of omission, and it set out paragraphs 3 to 8 of that judgment (para 2). As quoted, the sub-rule was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024 with effect from 08.10.2024, and the GST Council's recommendation that the omission operate prospectively was only advisory (para 2). Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Kolhapur Canesugar Works, the Supreme Court held that proceedings under an omitted rule continue only where a provision or legal device preserves them; no saving or sunset clause had been enacted, and the aim of ending the complications could not be read as keeping them alive for pending proceedings (para 2). The Bench recorded that the CBIC, by an office memorandum of 24.08.2026, had accepted that judgment and taken the view that the restrictions in Rule 96(10) cannot be applied to pending proceedings (para 3). Without ruling on the validity of the rule, the Bench disposed of the petitions in terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Goodluck India and the memorandum (para 4).

Legal Principle

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was omitted from 08.10.2024 without a saving clause, so the omission reaches refund proceedings pending on that date, as the Supreme Court held in Goodluck India and the CBIC accepted. On that footing, the petitioners' refund applications are to be decided afresh in accordance with law, without prejudice from earlier orders (paras 2-6).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For exporters whose IGST refunds were refused under Rule 96(10), this Division Bench order shows what the Supreme Court's Goodluck India ruling means in practice. The Bench did not rule on the vires of the rule; it disposed of the petitions on the basis of Goodluck India and the CBIC memorandum accepting it (paras 2-4). Exporters with similar petitions or refused claims should file a fresh refund application before the competent authority, rely on the direction that earlier orders cause no prejudice, and watch the twelve-week deadline for a decision (paras 5-6). The order fixes no refund amount; each claim is still decided strictly in accordance with law (para 5).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24550 of 2025, judgment dated 06.08.2026
Followed Discussed at ¶ 2, 3, 4
Supreme Court judgment placed before the Bench by counsel for the parties, whose paragraphs 3 to 8 the Bench set out: Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was omitted without a saving clause, the GST Council's recommendation for prospective omission was advisory, and, applying Kolhapur Canesugar Works, the omission reaches pending proceedings (para 2). The CBIC accepted it by an office memorandum of 24.08.2026 (para 3), and the Bench disposed of the writ petitions in terms of its paragraphs 7 and 8 (para 4).