☐ Has the transaction date been identified precisely? ☐ Has the applicable framework been determined (Service Tax pre-2017 vs GST post-2017)? ☐ For pre-GST matters, has Chapter V FA 1994 been applied (saved)? ☐ Has Service Tax Rules 1994…
173
☐ Has the transaction date been identified precisely? ☐ Has the applicable framework been determined (Service Tax pre-2017 vs GST post-2017)? ☐ For pre-GST matters, has Chapter V FA 1994 been applied (saved)? ☐ Has Service Tax Rules 1994…
Section 173 / saved Service Tax framework compliance — checklist (19 items)
Section 173 / saved Service Tax framework compliance — checklist (19 items)
☐ Has the transaction date been identified precisely?
☐ Has the applicable framework been determined (Service Tax pre-2017 vs GST post-2017)?
☐ For pre-GST matters, has Chapter V FA 1994 been applied (saved)?
☐ Has Service Tax Rules 1994 been applied (where applicable)?
☐ Has pre-GST Notification framework been applied (where applicable)?
☐ Has s. 142 transitional framework been engaged?
☐ Has s. 174 saving framework been examined?
☐ Has General Clauses Act 1897, s. 6 framework been applied?
☐ For appellate matters, has CESTAT framework been used?
☐ Has Sabka Vishwas settlement status been verified?
☐ For transition-spanning transactions, has time-of-supply analysis been done?
☐ Has Vatika prospective-operation framework been applied?
☐ Has Mafatlal procedural-fairness framework been observed?
☐ Has Mohit Minerals constitutional framework been applied?
☐ Has Filco Trade Centre framework been considered for systemic relief?
☐ Has Bharti Airtel substance-over-form framework been applied?
☐ Has CBIC operational guidance on saved framework been observed?
☐ Has the audit-trail of saved-framework compliance been preserved?
☐ Has the file been reviewed for audit-defensibility?
Worked examples — five live scenarios
Example 1 — Pre-GST Service Tax refund application
Facts: Service provider has pending refund claim for FY 2015-16 under Service Tax framework. Refund application filed in 2024.
Analysis: Pre-GST Service Tax refund application proceeds under saved Chapter V framework. s. 142(1) transitional provisions apply. Limitation period under pre-GST framework. Practitioner applies saved framework + s. 142 transitional framework. Sabka Vishwas was an alternative but operationally closed.
Result: Refund claim proceeds under saved framework. Documentary trail and limitation compliance critical.
Example 2 — Transition-spanning service supply
Facts: Service provider entered into a long-term contract for services beginning June 2017 and extending to August 2017. Services supplied across the transition.
Analysis: Pre-1-July element under Service Tax framework (saved); post-1-July element under GST framework. Time-of-supply rules govern allocation. Specific provisions in s. 142 address transitional period. Practitioner allocates carefully — Service Tax for pre-GST element; GST for post-GST element.
Result: Coordinated framework application. Time-of-supply analysis critical.
Example 3 — CESTAT appellate matter
Facts: Service provider had pending Service Tax adjudication order from 2016. Appeal at CESTAT filed in 2017. Matter is still pending in 2025.
Analysis: Pre-GST Service Tax appellate matter at CESTAT. Framework continues. CESTAT jurisdiction operative. Pre-GST jurisprudence applies. Section 173 omission does not displace pending appellate proceedings.
Result: CESTAT proceedings continue. Pre-GST framework applies.
Example 4 — Sabka Vishwas settlement
Facts: Service provider settled pre-GST Service Tax dispute under Sabka Vishwas Scheme in 2019. Department subsequently raises issues on the same period.
Analysis: Sabka Vishwas certificate is final settlement for the scheme-covered period. Department's subsequent issues outside scheme coverage may be raised; scheme-covered issues are closed. Practitioner produces settlement certificate as evidence. If Department challenges scheme-coverage scope, plead settlement finality.
Result: Sabka Vishwas settlement is final for covered scope. Outside-scope issues remain available.
Example 5 — Saved framework substantive challenge
Facts: Department initiates audit of pre-GST Service Tax period in 2024. Service provider challenges, alleging Service Tax framework is repealed.
Analysis: Section 173 omits Chapter V but saves substantive obligations through s. 142 / s. 174 / General Clauses Act. Pre-GST Service Tax obligations continue. Department's audit is operative. Practitioner's repeal-based challenge fails. Substantive defence on merits is the operative framework.
Result: Audit proceeds under saved framework. Repeal-based challenge unsuccessful.
Planning and litigation strategy
Litigation defence
Cross-references