Morepen Laboratories LTD vs. The UOI And Others
Held
The Court held that the impugned show cause notice dated 02.12.2025 is non-est in the eyes of law. The reasoning was based on the fact that Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017, was omitted by a notification dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. The Court found that on the date the SCN was issued, the said rule was not in existence, meaning the authority issuing the notice lacked statutory backing. This finding was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Goodluck India Limited and another versus Union of India and others, which emphasized that the omission of a rule, without a saving clause, effectively erases it from the statute book. The Court applied this principle to the present case, concluding that the SCN, issued on the premise of a non-existent rule, was invalid. The ratio decidendi is that a statutory notice issued based on a rule that has been omitted without a saving clause is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice dated 02.12.2025. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Morepen Laboratories Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated 02.12.2025 issued by the revenue authorities. The petitioner contended that the SCN was based on Rule 89(4B) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which had been omitted from the rules by a notification dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. The revenue argued that the process leading to the SCN was initiated and completed before the omission of the rule. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in M/s Goodluck India Limited and another versus Union of India and others, which dealt with the omission of similar rules.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated 02.12.2025, issued on the basis of Rule 89(4B) of the CGST Rules, 2017, is void ab initio and liable to be quashed, given that Rule 89(4B) was omitted from the CGST Rules, 2017, by a notification dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the SCN was issued based on a non-existent rule, making it void ab initio. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Goodluck India Limited and another versus Union of India and others, which held that the omission of a rule obliterates it from the statute book as if it had never existed, unless a saving clause is incorporated. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the process leading to the issuance of the SCN was initiated and completed before the omission of the statutory rule. However, they could not demonstrate that Rule 89(4B) was in effect on the date the SCN was issued.
Sections Cited
Rule 89(4B), Rule 89(4A), Rule 96(10), Rule 86(4B), Rule 89(4), Rule 89(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2026:HHC:45082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20929 of 2025 Date of decision: 12.10.2026 Morepen Laboratories Limited …..Petitioner
Versus Union of India and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Ms. Krati Singh and Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Bharat Manuwalia, Advocate (through V.C) and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Ms. Avantika Bhandari and Ms. Rashita Thakur, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing impugned SCN dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure P-1); 1Whether the report
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 Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.