Omission of Rule 96(10) entitles taxpayers to refunds of IGST paid on exports using Advance Authorisations.

The petitioner held Advance Authorizations for importing raw materials used in export goods and sought refunds relating to IGST paid in connection with exports, including amounts previously paid as interest and penalty.

After responding to the authorities’ requests for information, the petitioner sought refund of the unre-credited amount following the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 8 October 2024.

The respondent issued a show-cause notice proposing rejection of the claim; although the petitioner filed a reply and requested a personal hearing, the refund claim was rejected by order dated 18 December 2025.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought payment of the refund.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have its refund claim considered in light of the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and the applicable judicial precedents.

Whether the order rejecting the refund claim should be quashed and the respondents directed to process the claim.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was omitted by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax dated 8 October 2024.

The Supreme Court in Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India held, as quoted by the High Court, that the omission was made without a saving clause and that proceedings under the omitted rule could not be continued absent a provision preserving them; the High Court treated the decision as establishing the petitioner’s entitlement to pursue the refund claim.

The Court also relied on its decisions in MAC Industry v. Union of India and Maldeep Catalysta Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which had allowed refund claims on the same issue, and referred to Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India as the earlier decision in the line of authorities.

The Court found that the dispute was governed by the settled position in Goodluck India and the subsequent High Court decisions in MAC Industry and Maldeep Catalysta.

The respondent’s Senior Standing Counsel did not dispute the petitioner’s entitlement in light of those authorities and the omission of Rule 96(10).

Applying that precedent, the Court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner’s refund claim could not stand.

It directed the respondents to process the refund claim within 12 weeks from receipt of the order.