/ News · GST Exports · Updated 2026-10-28

Rule 96(10) Omitted Retrospectively: Exporters Can Fight Old IGST Refund Demands (Circular 264/10/2026), relief back to October 2017.

CBIC Circular 264/10/2026, dated 26 October 2026, accepts the Supreme Court's 6 August 2026 judgment in Goodluck India Limited and treats the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules as effective from 23 October 2017. Show cause notices and demands that relied on Rule 96(10) cannot be sustained, and the same treatment extends to Rules 89(4A) and 89(4B).

Get a firm quote → WhatsApp instead

Written by CA Durgesh Chavda

Chartered Accountant (ICAI) · Founder, Bharat Quantum Prospera · NRI taxation, US incorporation, transaction due diligence, forensic audit, AEO, cross-border tax · LinkedIn

/ What Rule 96(10) did

Background.

Rule 96(10), inserted from 23 October 2017, stopped exporters from claiming a refund of IGST paid on exports if they had bought inputs under certain concessional schemes, such as advance authorisation or EOU benefits.
Thousands of exporters received demands to repay IGST refunds, often with interest and penalty.
The rule was omitted from 8 October 2024 without a saving clause, and the dispute was whether pending cases survived.

/ What changed

Judgment and circular.

The Supreme Court held that, without a saving clause, the omission applies to all proceedings pending on the date of omission.
CBIC accepted the judgment without reservation and directed field officers to apply it: notices and demands founded on Rule 96(10) cannot be sustained at notice, adjudication or appeal stage.
The circular applies the same treatment to Rules 89(4A) and 89(4B), which reduced refund amounts in similar situations.

/ Who benefits and how

By stage of your case.

Your situation	What to do
Show cause notice pending	Reply citing the judgment and Circular 264/10/2026; ask for the notice to be dropped.
Order passed, appeal pending	File an additional submission with the circular; the demand should be set aside.
Paid under protest during pending proceedings	Claim a refund of the amount paid.
Refunds reduced under Rule 89(4A)/(4B), still in dispute	Seek recomputation.
Matter closed without contest, or final	Not automatically reopened; whether relief is available depends on whether proceedings were pending on 8 October 2024. Needs case review.

The time limit for refund claims arising from the circular is not settled; act promptly.

Sources: TaxGuru: Circular 264/10/2026.

Last updated: 28 October 2026. Based on published analysis of the circular and judgment. Confirm against the official circular or notification before acting.

/ Ready when you are

Exporter with a Rule 96(10) demand?

Old demands may now be unsustainable. Email durgesh@bharatquantumprospera.com or WhatsApp +91 78018 87130. Fixed-scope quote within 48 hours; work delivered remotely.

Get a firm quote → WhatsApp Durgesh

FAQ

Common questions, answered.

What does Circular 264/10/2026 say?

That the omission of Rule 96(10) applies retrospectively from 23 October 2017, following the Supreme Court's Goodluck India judgment of 6 August 2026, and that demands based on the rule cannot be sustained. The same applies to Rules 89(4A) and 89(4B).

Can exporters get back IGST they repaid under Rule 96(10)?

Amounts paid under protest or recovered while proceedings were pending can be claimed as refunds. Cases that were closed or became final are not automatically reopened.

Does it apply to cases in appeal?

Yes. Appellate authorities should set aside demands based on Rule 96(10); a short additional submission with the circular and judgment is usually enough.

Is there a deadline to claim?

The limitation period for refund claims arising from the circular is not settled, so claims should be filed promptly.

Can BQP review our Rule 96(10) exposure?

Yes: case review, submissions, appeals and refund claims for exporters. Email durgesh@bharatquantumprospera.com or WhatsApp +91 78018 87130. Fixed-scope quote within 48 hours; work delivered remotely.