In a landmark ruling, the Kerala High Court recently declared Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules to be ultra vires, or beyond the legal authority granted by the CGST Act. This rule restricted exporters from claiming refunds of unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC) under certain conditions, which the court found inconsistent with the Act’s intent. This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in maintaining a balance between legislative intent and administrative rule-making.
Background on Rule 96(10) and Input Tax Credit
Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the GST framework allows businesses to claim refunds on taxes paid during production, reducing the overall tax burden. Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, however, imposed restrictions on refund claims of unutilized ITC for exporters who had benefited from certain duty exemptions, effectively limiting the financial relief available to them. This rule was part of an effort to prevent what the government viewed as "double benefits" for exporters but ultimately raised concerns about its restrictive scope.
The High Court’s Examination of Rule 96(10)
The Kerala High Court carefully scrutinized the rule against the provisions of the CGST Act, analyzing whether its limitations aligned with the Act’s primary goals. In particular, the court considered whether the rule effectively denied exporters the benefits intended under the Act, resulting in undue hardship. Through this analysis, the court found that Rule 96(10) placed an unreasonable burden on exporters, constraining their right to financial relief under the Act.
Judicial Review and Grounds for Declaring the Rule Ultra Vires
The court’s assessment relied on the principle of “ultra vires,” wherein administrative rules cannot exceed or contradict the authority conferred by the parent legislation. Rule 96(10) was deemed to restrict exporter rights beyond what was stipulated in the CGST Act, thus violating legislative intent. By declaring the rule ultra vires, the court underscored the importance of safeguarding taxpayers’ rights against administrative overreach, especially when such rules can economically impact the affected parties.
Implications for Exporters and the GST Framework
The judgment has profound implications for exporters, who now may have greater access to ITC refunds without being constrained by the restrictive conditions of Rule 96(10). For the broader GST framework, this ruling signifies a need for precise alignment between administrative rules and the legislative goals of the GST laws, particularly to support the “ease of doing business” for India’s export sector. The decision reinforces the expectation that administrative policies must facilitate, rather than hinder, the business environment.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s decision to strike down Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules sets an important precedent in protecting exporters’ rights and upholding legislative integrity within the GST framework. This ruling exemplifies the judiciary's role in ensuring that the administrative rules support, rather than obstruct, the economic and legal rights provided under the law.
 of CGST Rules as Ultra Vires){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.