Writ remedy and service tax saving clause: direct challenge to assessment declined despite omission of the earlier levy provision.

A writ challenge to an assessment order was held ordinarily not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal was available, so direct interference under Article 226 was declined and the assessee was relegated to the appellate remedy. The omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 by the CGST Act did not extinguish existing service tax liabilities or pending proceedings, because the saving provision in Section 174(2)(c) preserved them. On that basis, the contention that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to levy service tax merely because the chapter had been omitted was rejected, and the assessment challenge was left to be pursued before the appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal. (ii) Whether omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deprived the authorities of jurisdiction to levy service tax.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order was maintainable despite the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against an assessment order and the objection of alternative remedy was found to have force. The matters raised against the assessment were treated as issues that could be examined in the statutory appellate forum, and routine challenges to legality of assessment were held not to warrant direct interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, and the assessee was not entitled to bypass that remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deprived the authorities of jurisdiction to levy service tax.

Analysis: The omission of Chapter V was held not to extinguish the obligation already created under the earlier law, because Section 174(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 saved such obligations and proceedings. On that basis, the challenge that service tax could not be imposed merely because Chapter V stood omitted was rejected.

Conclusion: The levy and proceedings were held to remain saved, and the omission of Chapter V did not oust jurisdiction or invalidate the assessment on that ground.

Final Conclusion: Direct writ interference was declined and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with the assessment challenge left to be pursued before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked to challenge an assessment order, and a saving clause preserves liabilities and proceedings arising under the repealed or omitted fiscal provision.

---