As per section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 repeal and substitution of law would not affect any investigation, enquiry or verification.

Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court to the provisions of Section 4(B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Statutory Provisions Relating to Service Tax) by which the Authority responsible for determining tax should complete the adjudication within one year from the date of the Demand Notice.

It is next argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the notes of the earlier adjudication by the Respondent No.2/being the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, that the hearing stood completed on the 17th of March, 2017.

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 4 (B) (b) (supra), the proceedings ought to have been completed by and within 13th May, 2017 since the notice of demand was issued on 13th May, 2016.

Additionally, Learned Counsel points out, the Hearing/Adjudicating Authority under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra) was under the lawful obligation to provide reasons for not concluding the proceedings within the period provided under Section 4 (B) (b) (supra). In the absence of such reasons, the order determining the demand dated 14th July, 2017 cannot be sustained.

The further point argued by Mr. Mittal is that the Respondent No.2 is the only officer who heard the petitioner and, therefore, the Demand having been decided by a different Respondent No.1, cannot be sustained. Relying on the Authority of AIR 1959 SC 308 learned Counsel argues that it is now trite law that the person who heard is the person who shall ultimately decide.

Arguing on behalf of the Respondents /Authority, Learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Mr. Kaushik Chanda takes this Court to the provisions of Section 3 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the 2017 Act) highlighting that Section 3, inter alia, provides that Officers appointed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall be deemed to be the Officers appointed under the provisions of the 2017 Act (supra).

Learned ASG submits that the Respondent No.1 is the same Officer/individual as the Respondent No.2 now holding the designation of the Respondent No.1 after conversion of the designation of the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1.

Learned ASG argues that the GST Law was introduced in July, 2017 and, under the deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act (supra), the Respondent No.1, in his earlier avatar as the Respondent No.2 conducted the hearing. However, since with the implementation of the GST Act, 2017 the designation of the Respondent No.2 was converted to that of the Respondent No.1, in exercise of the deeming provisions of Section 3 of the 2017 Act (supra) signed the final order. Accordingly, learned ASG submits that there is no infraction of the principles of natural justice or limitation qua the petitioner.

Next, taking this Court to Section 174(2) of the 2017 Act, learned ASG argues that the Repeal and Savings provisions makes it abundantly clear vide 174(2) (e) thereof that the repeal and substitution of the law shall not effect any investigation, enquiry or verification.

Learned ASG therefore submits on the purposive interpretation of the legal provisions in the light of the deeming provisions under Section 3(supra) that it never was the intention of the legislature to frustrate a pending/continuing adjudication.

Having considered the submissions as well as the materials placed, this Court finds that the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, are based on hyper technicalities which, in the considered view of this Court, are not of a nature so as to derail the adjudication process. This Court is satisfied that the statutory provisions relied upon by Ld. ASG to take care of the contingencies sought to be exploited by the petitioner/assessee company for filibustering the adjudication.

In the backdrop of the above recorded discussion surrounding the pure legal issues raised by the parties, affidavits are not invited. Allegations made are therefore deemed to be denied.

WP No. 26509(W) of 2017 stands accordingly, dismissed.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Subrata Talukdar, J.)