In re Tvl Tamilnadu Generation And Distribution Corporation Limited (GST AAAR Tamil Nadu)
AAAR find that as per the appellant’s argument, their application is liable to be admitted in as much as no case is pending before the Hon’ble Court in the name of the applicant on the issue in hand. In this context, AAAR find that the term ‘applicant’ is defined under Section 95(c) of the Act, which “means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act”, which goes to prove that the definition of ‘applicant’ is not restricted to provisions related to Advance Ruling alone, and that the definition is meant to cater to the entire Act. Further, AAAR notice that English has two articles, the’ which is called definite article and ‘a/an’ which is indefinite article. While the article the’ is used to refer to specific or particular nouns, ca/an’ on the other hand is used to modify non-specific or non-particular nouns. The use of the article ‘an’ before the noun ‘applicant’ is meant to denote a non-specific noun, and in other words, the term “an applicant” has to mean any applicant and not a particular applicant. Thus, in the light of said definition, AAAR do not find force in the applicant’s argument inasmuch as the term “applicant” means any person registered under this Act and it could be best interpreted that the legislative intent in its wisdom is to draft the relevant proviso to empower the Authority to reject the application in the cases where there is repeated filing of the application before the Authority on the same issue which is either pending for decision or already decided. AAAR find that the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttarakhand vide Ruling No.02/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020, in relation to an appeal filed by M/s. Vardhan Holidays, Uttarakhand, has come up with a similar view, and while referring the matter back, has directed the lower authority to examine the referred cases on merits and pass a detailed speaking order, “if they are not sub-judice.”
