|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 790 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURTAdjudication of demand of service tax post GST era - Jurisdiction of Commissioner to pass the order impugned in the Writ Petition - repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - submission of the appellants is that, in respect of the period when the Service Tax regime was in force, the proceedings should have been initiated prior to the repeal of the Service Tax regime on 01.07.2017, and that they could not be initiated after the said repeal. HELD THAT:- The aforesaid submission of the appellants is clearly misconceived in our view. This is evident from a plain reading of Section 174(2), which, despite the repeal and amendment of the Finance Act, 1994, saved the previous operation of the amended Act or repealed Acts, and orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. The amendment/ repeal did not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the amended Act or repealed Acts, or orders under such repealed or amended Acts. The repeal/ amendment also did not affect any duty, tax, surcharge, fine, penalty, interest as are due, or may become due, or any forfeiture, or punishment - incurred or inflicted, in respect of any offence or violation committed against the provisions of the amended Act or repealed Acts. The submission of the appellants that the institution of the proceedings should have taken place before 01.07.2017, needs only to be noted to be rejected. The saving clause (e) expressly permits the institution of the proceedings or remedy despite the amendment/ repeal - If the liability of the assessee survived in respect of the taxing laws in force prior to its repeal/ amendment even after such repeal/ amendment, it does not stand to reason that the machinery for fixation and realization of such liability would not be available to the State. There are no merit in the plea of the appellants that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the order impugned in the Writ Petition - appeal dismissed.
|
