Page 101 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] NATURAL WOOD AND VENEERS PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 59
as aforesaid, and any such investigation, inquiry, verification
(including scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adju-
dication and other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or
remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any
such tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, forfeiture or pun-
ishment may be levied or imposed as if these Acts had not
been so amended or repealed;
(f) affect any proceedings including that relating to an appeal, re-
view or reference, instituted before on, or after the appointed
day under the said amended Act or repealed Acts and such
proceedings shall be continued under the said amended Act or
repealed Acts as if this Act had not come into force and the
said Acts had not been amended or repealed.
(3) The mention of the particular matters referred to in sub-sections (1)
and (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of sec-
tion 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect
of repeal.
5. After hearing both sides and after careful consideration of the facts
and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the impugned Ext.P4 proceedings
dated 28-11-2019 issued by the 2nd respondent is essentially a show cause notice
and the petitioner is yet to respond to the same.
6. Sri V. Krishna Menon, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would assert that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge as
against Ext.P4 show cause notice by virtue of the discretionary jurisdiction con-
ferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the impugned
show cause notice has been issued patently without proper authority and the
notifications referred to therein are also not in force, as the parent statute under
which it has been issued is no longer invoked. But, it has been borne in mind that
Ext.P4 is a show cause notice and the petitioner has not so far given written ob-
jections to the same and proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P4 has not been final-
ised by the 2nd respondent in the manner known to law. The petitioner can cer-
tainly raise all contentions available to him in law, more particularly, the prelim-
inary objections on the basis of maintainability that the 2nd respondent has no
jurisdiction in the matter, in view of the contentions raised by the petitioner and
any of the contentions available to him in that regard and it shall be the bounden
obligation of the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the said issue regarding
maintainability, lack of jurisdiction etc. as the first issue to be determined before
the 2nd respondent can enter into the merits of the controversy. Therefore, it is
ordered that the petitioner Company may give their detailed written submis-
sions/written objections in the matter and the initial objections may be with re-
gard to maintainability and lack of jurisdiction and may also advert to the merits
of the matter. The 2nd respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner through authorised Counsel and consider all the conten-
tions of the petitioner both with reference to the maintainability, lack of jurisdic-
tion etc. as well as the merits of the matter. Thereafter, after affording reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent will advert to all
the above said contentions and should take a considered decision on the crucial
issue as to whether the 2nd respondent has got jurisdiction in the matter, more
particularly, regarding the tenability or otherwise of the above said contention
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  101