Finance Act Repeal Does Not Bar Service Tax Liabilities

The Court held that despite the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, previous operations were saved, allowing for the continuation of proceedings. It rejected the argument that liabilities under the Service Tax regime could not be imposed post-repeal, emphasizing the saving clause. The Court affirmed the Commissioner's jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, dismissing the appellants' plea. The appellants were granted liberty to raise other pleas in a statutory appeal. The appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellants to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication order, with exclusion of time spent before the Court for any delay condonation applications.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the order impugned in the Writ Petition post the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner post-repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994:
- The Special Appeal challenged the order dismissing the Writ Petition on grounds that the order was appealable under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- The appellants argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the order due to the repeal of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
- The appellants contended that liabilities under the Service Tax regime could not be imposed post the repeal on 01.07.2017, except for proceedings initiated before that date.
- The Court held that despite the repeal, previous operations of the amended Act or repealed Acts were saved, allowing for the continuation of proceedings and remedies.
- The Court rejected the appellants' argument that proceedings should have been initiated before 01.07.2017, emphasizing that the saving clause permitted the institution of proceedings post-repeal.
- Citing precedents, the Court dismissed the appellants' plea, affirming the Commissioner's jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
- The appellants were granted liberty to raise other pleas in the statutory appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- The appeal was dismissed, allowing the appellants to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication order, with exclusion of time spent before the Court for any delay condonation applications.
- Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

---