The Gujarat High Court has quashed a show cause notice and the consequent adjudication order demanding recovery under the now-omitted Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, following the Supreme Court's definitive ruling in Goodluck India Limited v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1523). The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati in Mac Industry v. Union of India (R/SCA No. 1693/2026, decided 03.09.2026) found the matter squarely covered by the Apex Court's holding that the omission of Rule 96(10) vide Notification No. 20/2024 dated 08.10.2024, without any saving clause or sunset clause, brings all pending proceedings to an end.
Rule 96(10) had restricted exporters who had availed benefits under certain advance authorisation, EPCG or duty exemption notifications from claiming refund of IGST paid on exports — creating a complex compliance web that the GST Council itself eventually described as causing "unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served." The Supreme Court in Goodluck India noted that the legislature's decision to omit the rule without any saving clause was a deliberate choice to end these complications "once and for all." The fact that the Council's recommendation that the omission be prospective was advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority. In the present case, the SCN was issued on 26.03.2025 — after the omission — making the case even stronger for the petitioner.
2026-juristway.com-1143-HC(Gujarat)-GST | High Court of Gujarat | R/SCA No. 1693 of 2026 | 03.09.2026