M/s JJ PLASTALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Gujarat High Court
High Court, Gujarat
A.S. Supehia, Justice & Pranav Trivedi, Justice
M/s JJ PLASTALLOY PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3081 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6457 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8103 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12157 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15510 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4332 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11299 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11410 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7047 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8227 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8568 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10569 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10569 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12436 of 2025 dated 20.11.2025
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
Rule Number : Rule 89 & 96
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Notification/Circular : Notification No. 20/2024 dated 08.10.2025
Decision : In favour of assessee
Refund of IGST – Export of goods – Validity of Rule 89(4B) & 96(10) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Omission vide Notification dated 08.10.2024 – Effect of repeal/omission on pending proceedings – Petitioners contended Notification No.20/2024 omitted Rules 89(4B) & 96(10) without any saving clause – Revenue contended omission prospective and not applicable to concluded appeals where OIA passed prior to omission – Petitioners relied on earlier decisions (batuk.online) holding omission applicable to pending proceedings – Omission of impugned rules without saving clause renders provisions redundant from inception – Under common law principle, repealed statute treated as if never existed except for transactions past and closed – Omission applies to all pending proceedings including undisposed SCNs, orders passed after or before 08.10.2024 but not finalized due to pending appeals/writ petitions – Orders challenged in writ petitions do not constitute “transactions past and closed” as remedy of appeal before Tribunal unavailable due to non-constitution – Held: Petitions allowed – Impugned actions quashed and set aside – Petitioners entitled to refund to be processed within twelve weeks.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Anand Nainawati
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member