Advance Ruling Authority rejected the application on the ground that similar matter is pending before various courts for other applicants and thus matter is sub-judice.

Applicant argued that the only ground on which the application can be rejected is when proceedings are pending or decided, in the case of applicant and no other person.

Facts of Case

The applicant has sought advance ruling on the admissibility of ITC in respect of goods/services received while constructing hotel including restaurant & banquet hall. The revenue has brought to the notice of the authority that on the similar issue M/s Rosewood Hospitality (P) ltd had filed a writ petition (WP No 1898/2019) before Hon’ble High Court, of Uttarakhand. Further the applicant had intimated the authority that the issue of admissibility of ITC on goods /services received or construction of immovable property has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha in the case of M/s Safari Retreat, (P) Ltd. and thus issue in hand is no more res integra However, the revenue as file SLP (C ) Diary No. 37367/2019 against the said judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court The applicant has also intimated the authority that similar petition is filed in the Hon’ble P & H High Uour in the case of DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd Vs UOl and the said petition is admitted by the said Hon’ble High Court.

Section 98(2) of the Act is reproduced as under:

Section 98(2) of the Act: The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for and after hearing the applicant or his authorized representative and the concerned officer or his authorized representative, by order, either admit or reject the application:

Provided that the Authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceedings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act:

Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this subsection unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant:

Provided also where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejection shall be specified in the order.

Held by AAR

On perusal of legal provisions (supra) we find that the authority shall not admit the application where the question raised in the application is pending or decided in any proceedings of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act. No application shall be rejected under this sub section unless the opportunity of hearing given to the applicant. Where the application is rejected reasons of such rejection shall be specified in the order.

We find that as per applicant’s argument their application can be admitted in as much as no case is pending before Hon’ble Court in the name of the applicant on the issue in hand. In this context we find that applicant has been defined under Section 95(c) of the Act which means any person registered or desirous of obtaining registration under this Act. Thus in light of said definition we do not find force in the applicant’s argument in as much as the "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.

In light of above discussion we observe that all the cases mentioned above are pending in respective courts on the same issue and thus matter is sub-judice. Accordingly application filed by the applicant on same issue is rejected in terms of the provisions of Section 98(2) of the Act.