Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40. Mr Sridharan submitted that the argument about the 2024 Amendment Rules being framed under Section 164 of the CGST Act and should therefore, be regarded as, a "Central Act" for purpose of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, was, JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+F-1.DOCX to some extent, accepted by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 22 and by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Falcon Tyres Limited Vs. Union of India23. However, these decisions were expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Canes Sugar Works Ltd (supra). He submitted that the decisions in the case of M/s. High Point Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which take the same view as in Saurashtra Cements (supra) and Falcon Tyres Ltd. (supra), also run counter to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Canes Sugar Works Ltd. (supra).

86. We have considered the decisions in Highpoint Hotels Pvt Ltd (supra) and Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd (supra). At the time when Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd (supra) was decided, the Coordinate Bench did not have the benefit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra). The decision in Laxmi Board and Paper Mills Pvt Ltd (supra) takes a view which does not align with the view taken by the Constitution JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+F-1.DOCX Bench in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Pvt Ltd (supra). Similarly, with respect, we believe that even the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Highpoint Hotels Pvt Ltd (supra) may not be consistent with the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra).

88. Similarly, the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Kolhapur Case Sugar Works Ltd (supra) was sought to be distinguished by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court by holding that there was no re-enactment of Rule 14(2) of the Excise Rules of 1968 after the omission of this Rule on 1 August 2014. Further, the learned Single Judge of JUDGMENT-WP-78-2025+F-1.DOCX the Karnataka High Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act by observing that the Constitution Bench's decisions in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra) concerned the treatment of the omission of a Rule as not constituting a repeal for the purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

89. With respect, though, in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra), a distinction was made between "omission" and the "repeal", there was no occasion for making any such distinction in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra). Secondly, in Fibre Boards Pvt Ltd (supra) and Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the observations regarding the distinction between omission and repeal were not the ratio decidendi of M/s Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) but, at best, were obiter dictum. Therefore, with respect, we are hesitant to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court when it comes to distinguishing the Constitution Bench decisions in Rayala Corporation Pvt Ltd (supra) and Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd (supra).