ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIA LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3036 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIA LIMITED
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND NAINAWATI(5970) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
PARAM V SHAH(9473) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Date : 02/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr.Param V. Shah waives service of notice of Rule for
and on behalf of the respondents.
2. At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties submitted that the issue raised in the
present writ petition is no more res integra in view of judgment
of this court in the case of M/s. JJ Plastalloy Private Limited Vs.
Union of India & Ors. , 2025 (12) TMI 311 – Gujarat High Court ,
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
dated 20.11.2025 followed by the judgment dated 28.11.2025
passed in Special Civil Application No.12321 of 2023 and allied
matters.
3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
the following reliefs:
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for all papers and
proceedings of the Petitioner's case pertaining to the Impugned SCN
issued by the Respondent No.2 (Exhibit-1), and after examining the
validity, legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash
the Impugned SCN and proceedings arising thereof; (Exhibit-1).
(aa) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus
or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Certiorari
or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioners'
case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and
set aside the Order - in - Original
No.55/VDR-II/JC-NKS/ADJ/Alstom/GST/2024-25 dated 29.04.2025(Exhibit
– 11).
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that since Rule 89(4B)
of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been omitted vide Notification No.20/2024
- Central Tax dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause, all the
proceedings/ investigation for denial of refund based on Rule 89(4B)
should be treated as non-est and should not be continued or initiated:
(Exhibit-2)
(bb) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operations of the Order - in -
Original No. 55/VDR-II/JC-NKS/ADJ/Alstom/GST/2024-25 dated
29.04.2025 and direct the Respondent No. 2 to not to take any
coercive recovery against the Petitioner; (Exhibit – 11).
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus,
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction that Rule 89(4B) of the
CGST Rules, 2017, being entirely silent on the methodology /
computation for calculation of refund amount, is ultra vires of Section
54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and also violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (g)
of the Constitution of India;
(d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to not to
proceed with adjudication of the impugned SCN and to not take any
coercive measures against the Petitioner in respect of the impugned
SCN (Exhibit-1).
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
(e) For ad-interim ex-parte reliefs) in terms of prayer clause (a) to
(d) above;
(f) For any other ad interim relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit over and above the relief prayed for at clause (a) to (d) above;
(g) For costs of the Petition; and
(h) For such other and further order or orders as may be deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.”
3.1 It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition,
the order in original dated 29.04.2025 has been passed by the
respondents, which is also assailed in the writ petition.
4. In the similar fact and on an analogous issue, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in a group of matters being
Special Civil Application No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters,
vide judgment dated 20.11.2025, while dealing with the
Notification No.20/2024 dated 08.10.2025, repealing Rule
89(4B) and 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017 without any saving clause, has held as under:
“5. It is not in dispute that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in a
group of matters being Special Civil Application No.22519 of 2019, vide
th
judgment dated 13 June, 2025, has dealt with the issue with regard to
Notification No.20/2024 dated 8th October, 2025, repealing Rule 96(10)
of the Rules without any saving clause, and has held as under :
“203. In view of above conspectus of law, it appears that the
recommendations of the GST Council to omit Rule 96(10)
prospectively would apply to all the pending proceedings and
cases. However, the contention on behalf of the Revenue that the
petitioners have filed these petitions challenging the validity of
Rule 96(10) cannot be said to be pending proceedings is without
any basis because the petitioners have also challenged the show
cause notices as well as orders-in-original passed by the
respondents by invoking Rule 96(10) for rejecting the refund
claims of the petitioners and therefore, it can be said that these
petitions are nothing but pending proceedings before the Court
which has not achieved finality when the Notification No.20/2024
came into force with effect from 8th October, 2024.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
204. By Notification No.20/2024 Rules, 2024 have been notified
and as per Rule 10 of the said Rules, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules
has been omitted with prospective effect. This would give rise to
three situations, firstly, whether the same would be applicable
retrospectively, or secondly, prospectively or thirdly, same would
be applicable prospectively but also to “pending proceedings”. As
discussed here-in-above, Rule 10 of Rules, 2024 is applicable
prospectively and the same also would be applicable to pending
proceedings.
205. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Notification No.20/2024
dated 8th October, 2024 would be applicable to all the pending
proceedings/cases meaning thereby that Rule 96(10) would stand
omitted prospectively but applicable to pending proceedings/cases
where final adjudication has not taken place.
206. Therefore, in view of foregoing reasons, the omission of Rule
96(10) would apply to all the proceedings/cases/petitions which are
pending for adjudication either before this Court or before the
respondent adjudicating authority and no further proceedings are
required to be carried forward and petitioners would be entitled to
maintain refund claims of IGST paid on export of goods.
207. In view of above findings, as Rule 96(10) would not be
applicable to the pending proceedings, in view of omission of Rule
96(10) by Notification No.20/2024 with effect from 8th October,
2024, the question of challenge to the vires and validity of rule
96(10) is not required to be considered at this stage.
208. The petitions therefore succeed in view of applicability of
Notification No.20/2024 whereby Rule 96(10) is omitted and the
said Notification would be applicable to all the pending
proceedings/cases as on 8th October, 2024. The impugned show
cause notices and the orders-in-original are therefore, quashed and
set aside. The petitioners are therefore, entitled to maintain refund
claims for IGST paid for the export of goods as per Rule 96 of the
CGST Rules, 2017 in accordance with law.”
6. We may, at this stage, refer to the decision of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Hikal Limited & Ors. (supra ), wherein the
th
Bombay High Court, while considering the Notification dated 8
October, 2024 and the provisions of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the
Rules, and the analogous issue, has held thus:
“59. From the above, it is indisputable that the impugned rules
stand deleted. The only dispute revolves around the scope of such
omission or repeal. The Petitioners contend that any savings clause
did not back such omission or repeal, and therefore, the common
law principle regarding repeals obliterating the repealed provision
from the statute book or rule book would apply. The Respondents
admit the omission or repeal but contend that the common law
rule would not apply because pending proceedings have been
expressly saved.
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
60. Justice G P Singh, in his “Principles of Statutory Interpretation”,
15th edition, has explained that under the common law, the
consequences of the repeal of a statute are very drastic. Except as
to transactions past and closed, a statute after its repeal is treated
as completely obliterated as if it had never been enacted. The
effect is to destroy all inchoate rights and all causes of action that
may have arisen under the repealed statute. Therefore, leaving
aside the cases where proceedings were commenced, prosecuted
and brought to a finality before the repeal, no proceeding under
the repealed statute can be commenced or continued after the
repeal (See Keshvan Vs State of Bombay31, State of Punjab Vs
Mohar Singh32, Qudrat Ullah Vs Municipal Board, Bareilly33, State
of Rajasthan Vs Mangilal Pindwal34 and Mohan Raj Vs Dimbeswari
Saikia & Anr35).
XXX XXX XXX
68. In Keshavan Menon Vs State of Bombay (supra), the expression
and concept of “transactions past and closed” was explained in the
context of repeal of an Act in paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 14, which
are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
“11. This statement of law by Craies was referred to with
Approval and adopted by the F. C. in J. K. Gas, Plant
Manufacturing Co., (Rampur), Ltd. v. Emperor, (1947) F.C.R.
141 at p. 166: (A. I. R. (34) 1947 F.C. 38:48 Cr. L. J. 886). As
to the effect of the repeal of an Act, the following passage
from Craies' book seems to sum up the legal position as it
obtained in England before the enactment of the
Interpretation Act of 1889 :
“When an Act of Parliament is repealed," said Lord
Tenterden in Surtees v. Ellison, (1829) 9 B. and C. 750
at p. 752: (7 L. J. K. B. 335), "it must be considered
(except as to transactions past and closed) as if it had
never existed. That is the general rule." Tindal C. J.
states the exception more widely. He says (in Kay v.
Goodwin, (1830) 6 Bing. 576: (8 L.J.C.P. 212): "The
effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it as
completely from the records of the Parliament as if it
had never been passed; and it must be considered as a
law that never existed except for the purpose of those
actions which were commenced, prosecuted and
concluded whilst it was an existing law." (p. 350)”
12. Again, Crawford in his book on "Statutory
Construction"dealing with the general effect of the repeal of
an Act states the law in America to be as follows: "A repeal
will generally, therefore, divest all inchoate rights which
have arisen under the repealed statute, and destroy all
accrued causes of action based thereon. As a result, such a
repeal, without a saving clause, will destroy any proceeding,
whether not yet begun, or whether pending at the time of
the enactment of the repealing Act, and not already
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
prosecuted to a final judgment so as to create a vested
right" (pp. 599-600).
14. The author then proceeds to quote the following
passage from Wall v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co., (125 . Ν
Ε . 20) :
"It is well settled that if a Statute giving a special remedy is
repealed without a saving clause in favour of pending suits
all suits must stop where the repeal finds them. If final relief
has not been granted before the repeal went into effect, it
cannot be after. If a case is appealed, and pending the
appeal the law is changed, the appellate Ct. must dispose of
the case under the law in force when its decision was
rendered. The effect of the repeal is to obliterate the Statute
repealed as completely as if it had never been passed, and
it must be considered as a law which never existed, except
for the purposes of those actions or suits which were
commenced, prosecuted and concluded while it was an
existing law. Pending judicial proceedings based upon a
Statute cannot proceed after its repeal. This rule holds true
until the proceedings have reached a final judgment in the
Ct. of last resort, for that Ct., when it comes to announce its
decision, conforms it to the law then existing, and may,
therefore, reverse a judgment which was correct when
pronounced in the subordinate tribunal from whence the
appeal was taken, if it appears that pending the appeal a
Statute which was necessary to support the judgment of the
lower Ct. has been withdrawn by an absolute repeal." (p.
601).
XXX XXX XXX
RELIEFS
122. Upon comprehensive review of all the above aspects,
we hold that, following the omission or repeal of the
impugned Rules, i.e., Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) of the CGST
Rules via Notification dated 08 October 2024, and in the
absence of any saving clauses or the benefit of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act, all pending proceedings—such as
undisposed show cause notices, orders disposing of show
cause notices issued after 08 October 2024, or even orders
made before 08 October 2024 but not yet finalised due to
appeals before the Appellate Authorities or challenges
before this Court, thus not constituting “transactions past
and closed”—are not preserved and will stand lapsed.
7. A combined reading of the aforesaid judgments, which have
th
dealt with Notification No.20/24 dated 8 October, 2024, repealing the
provisions of Rules 89(4B) and Rule 96(10), of the Rules exposit that
the repealing of the provisions of the Rules without a saving clause
renders the provisions redundant, right from the inception. The
omission of the Rules would apply to all the proceedings/ cases/
petitions which are pending for adjudication either before this Court or
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026

C/SCA/3036/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2026
before the respondent-adjudicating authority, or even to orders made
th
before 8 October, 2024 but not yet finalized due to appeals before the
Appellate Authorities or challenges before this Court, since the same
will not constitute “transactions past and closed”, and do not get
preserved and will stand lapsed. We may also further clarify that the
remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is not available
to the petitioners, since the Tribunal is not yet constituted, and hence
they are constrained to file the writ petitions. Thus, since the
petitioners have no remedy of filing an appeal because of the non-
constitution of the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the OIAs have
become final, and hence such orders will not constitute “transactions
past and closed”. The orders which are challenged in the writ petitions
will stand lapsed in view of the aforementioned decisions.
7.1. Thus, all writ petitions are allowed; the impugned action of the
respondents is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are entitled to
refund. All the pending applications for refund shall be processed. In
case the applications are rejected and the refund is refused, the same
shall stand restored and shall be further processed. Needful shall be
done within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of
the writ of the present order. Rule is made absolute. No order as to
costs.
8. In view of above, learned advocate for the applicant does not
press Civil Application (For Amendment) No.2 of 2025 in R/Special Civil
Application No.10569 of 2025. Hence, the present Civil Application
stands disposed of as not pressed.”
5. Thus, the present writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order in original and the subsequent action are
hereby quashed and set aside in terms of the judgment and
order dated 20.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application
No.3081 of 2025 and allied matters. Rule is made absolute. No
order as to costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA/75
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:05:12 IST 2026