"1 APHC010157472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8499 & 8500 of 2024 Bench Sr.No:-56 [3446] W.P.No.8499 of 2024 M/s. Krishna Sai Granites (india) Private Limited ...Petitioner Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Taxes and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, Y N VIVEKANANDA CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26th February 2026 P C : As both these Writ Petitions raise an identical question of law, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. In W.P.No.8499 of 2024, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Printed from counselvise.com 2 Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as the order in original, dated 21.12.2023, demanding recovery of refund of Rs.11,28,14,285/- sanctioned in relation to the exports for the period November, 2018 to September, 2022. 4. In W.P.No.8500 of 2024, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as well as the order in original dated, 21.12.2023, demanding recovery of refund of Rs.32,91,60,878/- sanctioned in relation to exports carried out for the period November, 2018 to September, 2022. 5. In both these cases, the assessing authority, who passed the orders in original had held that the refund of tax made to the petitioner was barred by Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules and that such refunds made, wrongfully, required to be recovered. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said orders, had approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petitions contending that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provision of Section 16 of the IGST Act apart from being violative of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 7. During the pendency of these Writ Petitions, Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules came to be omitted w.e.f. 08.10.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the said Rule 96(10) has been omitted without a saving clause. The learned counsel would submit that in such Printed from counselvise.com 3 circumstances all the proceedings initiated under such a rule would have to be set aside as they would not survive the omission of Rule 96(10). 8. Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules would not affect the orders in original which are impugned in the present cases. 9. This contention would have to be rejected. The impugned proceedings had been issued on the basis of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules. By virtue of its omission, with effect from 08.10.2024, the impugned orders do not have any basis and have to be set aside. 10. A similar view had already been taken in various judgments of this Court including the judgment, dated 19.02.2026, in W.P.Nos.17221 and 17222 of 2025. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned orders, dated 21.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent in both the cases. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ _______________________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J RJS Printed from counselvise.com 4 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.8499 & 8500 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dated: 26.02.2026 RJS Printed from counselvise.com "