M/S KSE ELECTRICALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER KOLKATA SOUTH CGST AND CX COMMISSIONERATE AND ORS

04
03.09.2026
Court No. 10
AGM/SM

In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

W.P.A. 6429 of 2025

M/s. KSE Electricals Private Limited & Anr.
-versus
The Additional Commissioner Kolkata South CGST
& CX Commissionerate, GST Bhawan & Ors.

Mr. Ankit Kanodia.
Ms. Megha Agarwal.
Mr. Shovan Ojha.
Ms. Tulika Roy.
Mr. Piyush Khaitan.
…For the Petitioners.

Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee.
Ms. Ekta Sinha.
… for the CGST & CX.

1. The core issue involved herein pertains to the
illegal and unsustainable claim raised by the
respondents against the petitioners on the
premise, that the petitioners have acted in
contravention of the provisions of Rule 96 (10) of
the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 despite the said
Rule having been omitted unconditionally with
th
effect from 8 October, 2024 vide Notification No.
20/2024-Central Tax, without any saving clause.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submit that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is no longer res Integra and stands
concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
observed in paragraph nos. 6 to 9 in the case of
M/s Goodluck India limited & Anr. –Versus-

2
Union of India & Ors in Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 24550 of 2025 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court relying upon the constitution
bench decision in Kolhapur Canesugar Works
Ltd. Vs. Unon of India (2000) 2 SCC 536, has
categorically held that upon omission of a
provision without any saving clause the provision
ceases to exist in the eye of law and no
proceedings can be initiated or continued on the
basis thereof. Relevant extracts of Paragraphs 6 to
9 of the said judgment are herein below for ready
reference:
“6. It has held by the Constitution Bench
that if on omission of a rule, there was a
provision for continuance of the
proceedings already initiated or if by
incorporation of a provision in the statute
there was a legal device adopted,
creating a fiction by virtue of which
proceedings under the omitted rule could
be continued; only then proceedings
initiated under the omitted rule could be
continued.
7. The Constitution Bench decision
applies squarely in the above case. We
may also observe that even going by the
recommendations as extracted
hereinabove, sub-rule (10) of Rule 96
was omitted because it was „leading to
unnecessary complications without any
intended benefit being served‟ (sic). As
fairly submitted by the learned ASG the

3
legislature has not brought in any saving
clause or a sunset clause, when sub-rule
(10) of Rule 96 was omitted. The
recommendation that the omission
should be prospective is also advisory in
nature and does not bind the rule making
authority. The intention to omit the rule
without any saving clause was to bring
to an end, the unnecessary complications
once and for all and the intention cannot
be to keep alive the unnecessary
complications insofar as the pending
proceedings are concerned.
8. We find no good reason to interfere
with the well-reasoned judgment of the
High Court. We are told that there are
many proceedings pending before the
various High Courts and conflicting
decisions have also been passed. We
hope that such proceedings would get
closure with this judgment.
9. The Registry is directed to send a copy
of this order to all the High Courts. The
Registry of the High Courts will ensure
that the cases relating to the subject
issue of omission of Rule 96(10) would be
placed before the Courts having roster,
after taking appropriate orders from the
Hon‟ble Chief Justice of the respective
High Courts, expeditiously to bring
quietus in the subject litigation.”

3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and
Customs have already accepted the declaration of

4
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of M/s Goodluck India limited & Anr.
(supra) and has issued Office Memorandum dated
24.08.2026 instructing the field formations not to
initiate or pursue proceedings based upon the
omitted Rule 96(10). A copy of the Memorandum
dated 24.8.2026 is kept on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for GST Authorities
files Affidavit-in-Opposition to the writ petition
and the same is taken on record. It is submitted
that the respondents have acted in accordance
with law as prevailing at the relevant point of
time.
5. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the
materials available on record this Court has taken
a judicial notice of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goodluck
India limited & Anr. (supra) and the office
memorandum dated 24.08.2026 issued by the
Central Board of Indirect Taxes. This court is of
the considered view that in the light of the
th
judgment dated 6 August, 2026 passed in the
case of M/s Goodluck India limited & Anr.
(Supra), the show cause notice dated 25.7.2024
issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017
for the period from July 2017 to March 2022,
along with the consequential orders dated

5
4.2.2025 passed in pursuance thereof, which are
founded solely upon the omitted Rule 19(10) are
hereby quashed and set aside.
6. With the above observations the writ petition
being WPA 6429 of 2025 is disposed of.
7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as
possible.

( Smita Das De, J.)