Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 944 - HC - Service TaxJurisdiction - appointment and jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers post GST - Validity of SCN issued demanding service tax post GST - power to inquiry / investigate / audit - Repealing of Chapter V of Finance Act of 1994 - Vires of Notification dated 09.06.2017 - Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - recovery of short paid money alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Rule 3 in general and Sub Rule (2) of the said Rule in particular makes it clear that the Board in its discretion can specify the jurisdictional limits of the Excise Officers, for the purpose of the Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder; this apart, Sub Rule (3) is structured in such a way that any Central Excise Officer may exercise the powers vested in his sub-ordinate officer; the impugned Notification thus needs to be interpreted in the light of sec.2(b) of the Act r/w Rule 3 of the 2002 Rules; in terms of the impugned Notification, the territorial jurisdiction of Bengaluru South Commissionerate is vested in the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Audit-I, Commissionerate, Bengaluru, as rightly contended by the Panel Counsel for the Revenue. The reliance by the counsel for the petitioner on the decision in AIR INDIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [1995 (7) TMI 425 - SUPREME COURT], does not come to his aid; the Apex Court banking upon "Benian on Statutory Interpretation," 2nd Edition, held that if a subordinate legislation is to survive the repeal of its parent statue, the repealing statute must say it in so many words and by mentioning the title of the subordinate legislation; there is no quarrel with this proposition at all; the question is with its invocability when the Central GST Act, 2017 which repeals the Acts in question makes a saving provision that too by naming them, in so many words; it has been a settled principle of law of precedent that a decision is an authority for what it actually lays down, and not for what all logically follows from what is laid down therefore, much milk cannot be derived by placing reliance on the said ruling. Having held the impugned Notification as being valid and applicable to the petitioner, this court declines to quash the impugned notice which only calls upon him to submit a reply for showing cause against the proposed action namely, the recovery of 'short payment' with interest/penalty Once a decision is taken by the authority after considering the cause shown by the noticee, writ jurisdiction may become invocable, subject to all just exceptions; therefore, this court declines to examine the validity and sustainability of the impugned Show Cause Notice. This Writ Petition being devoid of merits, fails - decided against petitioner.
|