GST
Supreme Court holds omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules applies to all IGST refund proceedings pending as on 8 October 2024, relying on the Kolhapur Canesugar principle that an omitted rule without a saving clause cannot sustain pending proceedings.
Read the briefingGST
Bombay HC dismisses a writ against a ₹6.50 crore GST demand, holding natural justice cannot be routinely invoked to bypass the statutory appeal mechanism and mandatory pre-deposit; flags a "growing tendency" to attempt this.
Read: Bombay High Court: Natural Justice Cannot Be a "Sheet Anchor" to Bypass Statutory GST Appeal and Pre-DepositGST Compliance
Worked calculation of the two approaching GST SCN limitation deadlines — 28 August 2026 (Sec 74, FY 2020-21) and 30 September 2026 (Sec 73, FY 2022-23) — plus the FY 2024-25 Section 74A shift.
Read: Practical Compliance Guide: GST SCN Limitation Deadlines for FY 2020-21 (Section 74) and FY 2022-23 (Section 73)Did You Know
The Supreme Court's Rule 96(10) omission ruling rests on the Constitution Bench principle in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India: an omitted rule without a saving clause is treated as if it never existed.
Quiz of the Day
In M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., what Constitution Bench precedent did the Supreme Court rely on to hold that pending Rule 96(10) proceedings could not continue? Answer: Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. v. Union of India.