Saving provisions under the CGST Act preserved pre-GST proceedings, so the show cause notice challenge failed.

A jurisdictional challenge to a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 failed because the CGST Act's saving provisions, read with Sections 173 and 174(2)(e), preserve pending and initiable investigation, inquiry, adjudication, recovery and allied proceedings as if the earlier law had not been amended or repealed. The prior coordinate bench ruling was followed to hold that omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 did not extinguish such proceedings. The notice was therefore not treated as without jurisdiction, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was without jurisdiction after the enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and whether the proceedings could still be continued under the saving provisions.

Analysis: The challenge to the notice was examined in the light of Sections 173 and 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prior coordinate bench ruling had held that omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 did not extinguish pending or initiable proceedings, because the saving clause preserves investigation, inquiry, adjudication, recovery and allied proceedings as if the Finance Act, 1994 had not been amended or repealed. On that basis, the contention that fresh proceedings could not be initiated after the CGST regime came into force was not accepted.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge to the show cause notice failed, and the writ petition was dismissed.

---