Summary
- The Supreme Court in M/s Goodluck India Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. ruled that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings.
- This decision, based on the Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. precedent, has sparked debate over its implications for future prospective omissions in delegated legislation.
- The author argues that a distinction should be made between complete obliteration and a prospective omission acknowledging a rule's prior existence until a specified date.
- The article calls for reconsideration of the legal framework surrounding such omissions, warning against potential revenue implications for ongoing proceedings.
Join the discussion ā sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.