Saving clause preserves jurisdictional notification, while writ interference against a show cause notice remains premature before statutory decision.

Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act is stated to preserve pending investigations, inquiries and connected proceedings despite repeal, and the note says this saving clause keeps the territorial jurisdiction notification effective for service tax matters. It also states that the challenge to the notification fails because the Central Excise framework could continue to apply mutatis mutandis. On writ remedy, the note states that a show cause notice should ordinarily be replied to before the statutory authority and is not to be quashed at the threshold unless exceptional grounds exist; the notice challenge is treated as premature, while time to reply is preserved and coercive action is deferred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notification conferring territorial jurisdiction on Central Excise and Service Tax survived the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and applied to the petitioner's proceedings; (ii) Whether the writ petition could be entertained for quashing the show cause notice at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification conferring territorial jurisdiction on Central Excise and Service Tax officials survived the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and applied to the petitioner's proceedings.

Analysis: Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 preserves investigations, inquiries, audits, assessments, adjudications, recovery and connected proceedings notwithstanding repeal. The notification was issued under Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which authorise specification of jurisdiction and vesting of powers in Central Excise Officers. The scheme of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 also makes the relevant Central Excise machinery applicable to service tax matters mutatis mutandis. The challenge to the notification therefore failed.

Conclusion: The notification was held valid and applicable against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained for quashing the show cause notice at the threshold.

Analysis: A show cause notice ordinarily should be answered before the designated authority, and writ interference is not warranted at the stage of notice unless a clear exceptional case is made out. Since the notice only called for a reply and the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to place all objections before the authority, including its challenge to the notification, the Court declined to examine the notice on merits.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was not quashed and the writ challenge to it was rejected as premature.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed, but time was granted to respond to the show cause notice and coercive action was deferred until the reply and subsequent decision process were completed.

Ratio Decidendi: A saving clause preserving pending proceedings sustains the impugned jurisdictional notification after repeal, and a show cause notice is ordinarily not to be quashed in writ proceedings before the statutory authority is allowed to decide the matter.

---