Supreme Court Ruling Ends Rule 96(10) Confusion for Exporters

Final Nail in the Coffin of Rule 96(1 0): Big GST Relief for Affected Taxpayers

Supreme Court Holds Omission of Rule 96(1 0) Applies to All Pending Proceedings — A Landmark Win for Exporters

In a landmark ruling delivering major relief to exporters across India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Goodluck India Ltd. v. Union of India [2026 INSC 821 ] (Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice K. Vinod Chandran) has held that the omission of Rule 96(1 0) of the CGST Rules (effective 08.1 0.2024) applies retrospectively to all pending proceedings as well.

This judgment puts to rest years of litigation uncertainty and is being hailed as the final nail in the coffin of Rule 96(1 0) disputes.

What Was Rule 96(1 0) of the CGST Rules?

Rule 96(1 0) restricted exporters from claiming an IGST refund on exported goods if they had availed benefits under exemption schemes such as Advance Authorisation and the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme. The provision was a major pain point for exporters and generated extensive litigation across various High Courts.

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Ruling

• The Central Government omitted Rule 96(1 0) with effect from 08.1 0.2024, without inserting any saving clause.
• The Supreme Court held that in the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted rule is treated as if it never existed — meaning it cannot be applied to pending refund claims either.
• The Court accepted the Additional Solicitor General’s (ASG) submission that the GST Council’s recommendation for prospective effect was merely advisory in nature and not legally binding.
• The Court observed that the intent behind removing the rule without a saving clause was to end the confusion once and for all, not to keep it alive for pending matters.

Why Paras 8 & 9 of the Judgment Matter

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment carry special significance for practitioners:

• The Supreme Court flagged conflicting decisions passed by various High Courts on the applicability of the Rule 96(1 0) omission.
• The Bench expressed hope that this ruling would bring closure to the ongoing controversy nationwide.
• The Court directed the Registry to circulate copies of this order to all High Courts where Rule 96(1 0)-related matters are pending, with instructions to list such matters before roster benches expeditiously to bring the litigation to a quietus.

What This Means for Taxpayers and Exporters

This ruling is a binding Supreme Court precedent — a game-changer for exporters and tax practitioners with pending appeals, writ petitions, or refund claims tied to Rule 96(1 0). Key takeaways include:

• Exporters whose refund applications were pending at the time Rule 96(1 0) was omitted can now claim IGST refunds without restriction.
• High Courts across India are expected to expedite disposal of pending Rule 96(1 0) matters in line with the Supreme Court’s directive.
• Practitioners now have clear, authoritative backing to argue for retrospective applicability of the rule’s omission in ongoing litigation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Goodluck India Ltd.

v. Union of India [2026 INSC 821 ] marks a decisive and much-awaited resolution to one of GST law’s most contested issues. With this judgment, exporters and taxpayers embroiled in Rule 96(1 0) disputes finally have the clarity — and the binding precedent — needed to secure their rightful IGST refunds.

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Taxpayers with pending matters are advised to consult their GST counsel to evaluate the impact of this ruling on their specific case.