Case Details: Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Versus Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur (2025) 33 Centax 138 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
-
Shri Rahul Lakhwani, Adv., for the Appellant.
-
Shri Shashank Yadav, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the authority of the Commissioner, CGST, to decide pending service tax matters. It was contended that with the introduction of GST, several enactments including the Finance Act, 1994, under which service tax had been levied, stood repealed. The appellant argued that officers functioning under the CGST framework could not continue to exercise jurisdiction under repealed laws. Reliance was placed on the constitutional definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 to contend that such officers did not have authority to adjudicate service tax disputes. The Department referred to Sections 173 and 174 of the CGST Act to submit that actions, rights, privileges, obligations, and liabilities under the repealed Acts stood saved and could be pursued by CGST officers. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that CGST officers are the statutory successors of service tax administration and that jurisdictional officers can and must pursue such actions, as otherwise it would result in utter chaos and confusion. It was observed that Sections 173 and 174 of the CGST Act specifically save proceedings, rights, and obligations under repealed laws, and hence the Commissioner, CGST, is competent to adjudicate service tax matters. The Tribunal further clarified that the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution is confined only to Part III relating to Fundamental Rights and has no application to the issue of jurisdiction in tax administration.
