Introduction

Everyone wants to write and publish an article, especially about tax law and GST has occupied centre stage in this area for a few years now. While this is a welcome trend but if it’s not to fade away, as most trends tend to do, it would help if both – writer and reader – enjoy this exercise such that it becomes a movement rather than just a trend. Movements are those that do not stop although ‘players’ come, contribute and make way for ‘new players’ who bring in new thoughts and ideas. And everyone, old and new, keep what they found, in this movement.

Writers enjoy bringing new thoughts (not just information) and unravel the consequences that could befall a specific transaction that they have identified after deep study of that specific industry sector. Readers enjoy the shock-value of the opening statements of a new thought as they thumb through the pages that grips their attention as they read ‘both sides’ to the application of this thought. And even after they finish reading the article, they find themselves compelled to carry this ‘thought’ forward until they decide which ‘side’ they wish to lend their support, mindful of the consequences and prepared to defend their position.

Underlying ‘thought’

Every article must have its ‘underlying thought’ that the writer proposes to present for its readers’ consideration, that’s its purpose. Publishing an article alone can never be the purpose of any conscientious writer. Hopelessly helpless is a writer who cannot but ‘enlighten’ readers from the research on inevitable consequences that are imminent is the impelling force to write. So, write one must, but not to ‘furnish information’ as that would belittle readers who must have reasonable reading skills and the law on GST is already available in English. It’s the application of this law to non-standard factual position in a specific industry sector, that has all the trappings of a topic for a reader-worthy article to (research and then) write something about.

Anyone with any respectable readership owes this courtesy to justify their position in their article. It would be incomplete if the ‘other side’ were omitted. In fact, it would be enjoyable to argue oneself out of one’s own position, if that were possible. Now, readers have ‘both sides’ to consider, even if the arguments ‘against’ are compelling to some readers, capable of improving quality of this ‘non-standard factual position’ (of that industry) from of their own observation and analysis. When presenting the ‘underlying thought’, the objective is not to impose upon readers, one’s thoughts as if to extract their concurrence although readers have already been swayed away. But consider the possibility that the insightful research presents the ‘extant position’ that has borne itself out in the provision of law which the lawmaker knows but not the reader. That would be sweet and a treat to share this thought with readers. After all, no knowledge is worth its discovery if it were locked away in one’s mind and sharing it in an article sets the ‘thought’ free to fulfil its purpose of ‘service’ to others, whether taxpayer reads it or tax administrator does.

Research

No article deserves any readership if it’s not the outcome of 100 hours of research. By this yardstick, ‘articles’ comes down to a manageable number out of all that are published. It’s impossible for a writer to proceed with a draft without 100 hours of research. Any less, and it would be incomplete, and risks being relegated as an information ‘flyer’ but certainly not an article.

While 100 hours of research is not the goal, but only a guide and it could easily be far more. If the need for research is unappealing then that will show in the article. Well researched articles are deep, they contain insights that would be innocuous at the same time inevitable in that industry. If it will produce one of two reactions, shock or approval. Shock, because of readers’ ignorance of this ‘domain understanding’ are revealed and approval, because readers’ familiarity about inevitability of consequences finds support.

Did you know that taking a photo in space is not like it is on earth? On earth, air acts as a medium to convey light but in space, without air, there’s no medium. Now consider, how else could light be conveyed. So, research is not dispensable, and lack of research is unconcealable.

Word limit

Article cannot be prescribed a ‘word limit’ but writers should limit their words. Article is not a place to dump all their research. 100 hours (or more) of research must lead to brevity. It takes an Ian Fleming to write 500 pages of gripping story, but readers of GST articles are not ‘Bond fans’ and Ian Fleming is long gone.

Repetition and overemphasis are proof of writers’ lack of confidence in merits of the arguments presented. What can be stated plainly may be stated plainly and left to the reader to read attentively. Anticipation that content may be skipped by speed-readers is patronizing. When one has brought oneself to pick up an article on GST, underlying thought must be swiftly delivered and fewer the words, better is its enjoyment.

Espresso delivers caffeine needed in a ‘shot’ as much as a ‘tall’ mug with embellishments that weren’t the reason for making the trip to the coffee shop. Brevity breeds readership, research retains attention, arguments on ‘both sides’ brings readers back to the next and conclusions are only a disclosure or disclaimer that tells which side of the argument is the writer on but, all readers are on the writer’s side even if on this argument they don’t agree.

Bad words

For a writer on tax law and especially GST law, using this expression ‘intention of lawmaker’ is taboo and it points to writers’ inability to find for the argument from within the written words of the lawmaker expressed in the law itself. Hansard is documented discussion in British Parliament. And when Hansard has been rejected as ‘guide to interpretation’ of statute law, writers’ assertion about this ‘undocumented intention’ is appalling.

Another affront to readers is to beat them with authorities from various decisions, especially without presenting the context. Citing authorities is not to source interpretation from but to find support to interpretation already arrived at. Without one’s own interpretation, citing decisions is like outsourcing interpretation to Courts. Not to take away merit of authorities, and when they are from the highest Court, its law of the land. But the present pursuit is to read writer’s view about the underlying thought and if this view is abdicated to a matrix of decisions then, it raises serious doubts whether the thought will stay or vanish, when interpretations arrive differently in time. Whether installation of elevators is a works contract or sale simplicitor finally did not get authoritatively resolved by Courts under the VAT law even by the time it was set to make way for GST. That’s because this issue – works contract or sale simplicitor – is affected by the unique facts in each case whether it’s part of original works or replacement works without altering capacity that merits capitalization and so on.

An article is welcome to cite judicial authorities but not to silence readers and prevent them from entertaining a possibility that that may not be the only way to interpret any provision. Courts have, in no few occasions admitted to have laid the law down incorrectly and then go on to rectify it later. GST has not even begun to provide us authoritative interpretation because Courts are currently embroiled in ‘moulding equitable relief’ in writ petitions, as matters have not yet reached Courts through statutory appeal in revision petitions.

Readers know they need to stop reading right at the point when they come across these taboo words, drop the article and proceed no further. It saves time and mind space from the rest of the botheration that this article must be about.

Both ‘sides’

It would be very presumptuous for an article to have only ‘one side’ to the argument presented as if ‘other side’ were somehow impossible to exist. Articles that don’t present ‘both’ sides to the argument lack imagination. Even if the other view is unimpressive, it’s still there and readers deserve to be told about it. While it may be unimpressive, writer cannot second guess readers take about the other side to the argument. If the objective is to allow readers reach their own conclusions, it’s writer’s responsibility to equip readers with all the material they might need to consider, in reaching conclusions.

Readers cannot be furnished ‘curated arguments’ and expected to only accord their approval to writer’s conclusions. Litigators say they are disloyal to their own arguments because they will take each case on its own merits where the final view is that which sways the Court and not even the one that litigator espouses. Articles are not arguments in a Court of law. Articles clear the decks of all confusion and prejudice and lays down relevant material before readers and puts the ‘thought on trial’. And that’s the purpose of the article. It presents the writers reason for penning this piece and begs readers to return for more ‘thoughts’.

Conclusion

InstaGST is a web application that provides variety of information making its patrons ‘lazy as a lobster’ with the law sliced and diced in different ways to meet every need imaginable. It presents short videos explaining provisions with examples. It provides links to various resources arranged according to industry sectors. The section that deals with articles, graciously seeks fellow professionals to contribute and publish their throughs through topical articles to disseminate private research for public consumption. But the most uncharitable thing to do is to write ‘rubbish’ and expect it to be accepted and published. And for those who take themselves seriously and enjoy their thoughts about this new law, here’s a small something about the ‘story of an article’ on GST to help steer this enthusiasm that would bring joy to everyone!

                                                                                                                                                         * * * * *