https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304035 The appellate authority disagreed with the appellant's interpretation of the term "an applicant" in Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, stating it refers to any applicant, not a specific party. The authority found the ruling non-speaking and directed the AAR to reevaluate the issues. Regarding input tax credit, the AAR's rejection based on sub-judice matters was deemed premature, requiring detailed examination. The authority set aside the ruling, instructing a fresh consideration by the AAR, emphasizing a thorough analysis of each issue. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304035 The appellate authority disagreed with the appellant's interpretation of the term "an applicant" in Section 98(2) of the CGST Act, stating it refers to any applicant, not a specific party. The authority found the ruling non-speaking and directed the AAR to reevaluate the issues. Regarding input tax credit, the AAR's rejection based on sub-judice matters was deemed premature, requiring detailed examination. The authority set aside the ruling, instructing a fresh consideration by the AAR, emphasizing a thorough analysis of each issue. Case-Laws GST Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304035