https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391331 Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act is stated to preserve pending investigations, inquiries and connected proceedings despite repeal, and the note says this saving clause keeps the territorial jurisdiction notification effective for service tax matters. It also states that the challenge to the notification fails because the Central Excise framework could continue to apply mutatis mutandis. On writ remedy, the note states that a show cause notice should ordinarily be replied to before the statutory authority and is not to be quashed at the threshold unless exceptional grounds exist; the notice challenge is treated as premature, while time to reply is preserved and coercive action is deferred. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391331 Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act is stated to preserve pending investigations, inquiries and connected proceedings despite repeal, and the note says this saving clause keeps the territorial jurisdiction notification effective for service tax matters. It also states that the challenge to the notification fails because the Central Excise framework could continue to apply mutatis mutandis. On writ remedy, the note states that a show cause notice should ordinarily be replied to before the statutory authority and is not to be quashed at the threshold unless exceptional grounds exist; the notice challenge is treated as premature, while time to reply is preserved and coercive action is deferred. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 17 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391331