2023 (6) TMI 790 - HC - Service Tax

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 ... Adjudication 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which, despite the repeal and amendment of the Finance Act, 1994, saved the previous operation of the amended Act or repealed Acts, and orders or anything duly done or suffered thereunder.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did not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the amended Act or repealed Acts, or orders under such repealed or amended Acts.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- incurred or inflicted, in respect of any offence or violation committed against the provisions of the amended Act or repealed Acts.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. 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.