Dev Versha Publication Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the appellants' submission that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction was misconceived. It reasoned that Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, explicitly saves the previous operation of repealed Acts and orders, and does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under such Acts. Crucially, Section 174(2)(e) expressly permits the institution, continuation, or enforcement of investigation, inquiry, verification, assessment proceedings, adjudication, and other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy in respect of any duty, tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, etc., as if the Acts had not been amended or repealed. The Court found that this saving clause directly permitted the institution of proceedings even after the repeal. The Court noted that similar submissions had been rejected by the Delhi High Court in Vianaar Homes Private Limited and Matrix Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., and by the Madras High Court in M/s Amirta International Institute of Hotel Management. The Court dismissed the appeal, granting liberty to the appellants to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication order, with a direction to exclude the time spent before the High Court for condonation of delay.

Facts

The appellants, Dev Versha Publication Private Limited and others, filed a Special Appeal against an order dated 17.03.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had dismissed their Writ Petition, WPMS No. 2739 of 2022, on the ground that the Adjudication Order No. 35/COMMR/DDN/2022 dated 30.06.2022, passed by the Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun, was an appealable order under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants argued that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the order because Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, relating to Service Tax, was omitted by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effective from 01.07.2017. They contended that proceedings could not be initiated after this repeal, even for periods preceding it, unless already initiated before 01.07.2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the Adjudication Order dated 30.06.2022, pertaining to Service Tax liability, after the omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, by Section 173 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, effective from 01.07.2017? Appellants' contention: The appellants argued that the omission of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, meant that no new proceedings could be initiated for Service Tax liability after 01.07.2017, even if the liability accrued for a period prior to the repeal. They contended that only proceedings already initiated before 01.07.2017 could be continued. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly argued that the repeal did not affect the ability to initiate or continue proceedings for liabilities incurred under the repealed Act, relying on the saving provisions of Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.