Hubergroup INDIA Private LTD vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary Ministry Of Financeand Ors
Held
The Court held that the omission of Rule 89(4)(b) of the CGST Rules 2017, vide notification dated October 8, 2024, was made without any savings provisions. The Court further held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply to save orders based upon Rule 89(4)(b), except for cancellation of transactions that are past and closed. Following its decision in Hikal Ltd. (supra), the Court set aside the impugned order dated September 23, 2024. The Court directed the concerned respondent to decide the petitioner's rectification application after taking cognizance of the decision in Hikal Ltd. (supra). All other contentions of the parties regarding the rectification application were kept open for the concerned authority to decide. The petition was disposed of without any cost.
Facts
The petitioner, Hubergroup India Private Ltd, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 89(4)(b) of the CGST Rules 2017, as it existed until October 8, 2024. They also challenged an order dated September 23, 2024, which rejected their rectification application. The rejection was based on the premise that Rule 89(4)(b) applied to past transactions. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court decision in Hikal Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.
Key Issues
1. Whether Rule 89(4)(b) of the CGST Rules 2017, as it stood until October 8, 2024, is constitutionally valid, particularly in its application to past transactions, considering its subsequent omission without savings provisions? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the omission of Rule 89(4)(b) of the CGST Rules 2017, effective October 8, 2024, was made without any savings provisions. They argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply to save orders based on the omitted rule, except for transactions that are past and closed. They relied on the High Court's decision in Hikal Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and Ors.).
Sections Cited
Rule 89(4)(b), Section 6
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
18-WP-159-2025 (C).DOCX Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 159 OF 2025 Hubergroup India Private Ltd ...Petitioner Versus Union Of India Thr The Secretary Ministry Of Finance and Ors ...Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr. Surinarayan Iyer, a/w Adv. Deepali Kamble, for Petitioner. Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Adv. Sangeeta Y., Adv. Rupesh Dubey, for Respondents. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 14 October 2025 P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 89(4)(b) of the CGST Rules 2017 as it stood until 8th October 2024 and has also questioned the impugned order dated 23rd September 2024 rejecting petitioner’s Order dated 11th September 2025 in WP
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.