Page 195 - GSTL_3rd September 2020_Vol 40_Part 1

2020 ] IN RE : VARDHAN HOLIDAYS 129
9. Per contra the applicant vehemently argued that the only ground on
which the application can be rejected is when proceedings are pending or decid-
ed as the case may be, in the case of applicant and no other person. The applicant
also argued that from the facts mentioned in the SCN it can be seen that there is
neither a final nor a temporary order of any kind issued by the Hon’ble High
Court in the writ petition, basis which the purported SCN is issued. On the con-
trary, the judgment of Hon’ble Odisha High Court in the matter of M/s. Safari
Retreat, (P) Ltd. is the final binding order in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
10. In his context provisions of section 98(2) of the Act are 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 ques-
tion raised in the application is already pending or decided in any proceed-
ings in the case of an applicant under any of the provisions of this Act :
Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section
unless an opportunity of hearing has been given to the applicant :
Provided also where the application is rejected, the reasons for such rejec-
tion shall be specified in the order.
11. 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 provi-
sions 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 reject-
ed reasons of such rejection shall be specified in the order.
12. We find that as per applicant’s argument their application can be
admitted inasmuch 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 de-
sirous of obtaining registration under this Act. Thus in light of said definition we
do not find force in the applicant’s argument inasmuch as the “applicant” means
any person registered under this Act and it could be best interpreted that the leg-
islative intent in its wisdom is to draft the relevant proviso to empower the Au-
thority 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.
13. 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.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  3rd September 2020  211