https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361931 Pending tax adjudication was held not to fail merely because the regime shifted from service tax to GST, where deeming and savings provisions preserved ongoing proceedings and the limitation objection was treated as hyper-technical. The challenge that the adjudication was time-barred under the earlier finance law was rejected. The Court also held that no invalidity arose from the final order being signed by the officer who had heard the matter under a changed designation after GST, since the same individual remained identifiable in law and no breach of natural justice was shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the demand determination was upheld. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361931 Pending tax adjudication was held not to fail merely because the regime shifted from service tax to GST, where deeming and savings provisions preserved ongoing proceedings and the limitation objection was treated as hyper-technical. The challenge that the adjudication was time-barred under the earlier finance law was rejected. The Court also held that no invalidity arose from the final order being signed by the officer who had heard the matter under a changed designation after GST, since the same individual remained identifiable in law and no breach of natural justice was shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the demand determination was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361931