Page 201 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. 567
Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. v. Collector — 1994 (71) E.L.T. 724 (Tribunal) — Referred .................. [Para 24]
[Order]. - Proceedings : At the outset, we would like to make it clear that
the provisions of both the CGST Act and the MGST Act are the same except for
certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dis-
similar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean a reference to
the same provisions under the MGST Act. Further, the CGST Act, 2017 and
MGST Act, 2017, sometimes, shall also be referred as GST Act.
M/s. CMS Info Systems Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Appel-
lant”) had filed application for advance ruling under the provision of Section
97(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the members of the Advance Ruling Au-
thority differed in their opinion in deciding one of the two issues/questions
raised by the applicant before them, and consequently had referred the same to
the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling in terms of Section 98(5) of the
CGST Act, 2017 for decision on the said question. Accordingly, the said issue,
which remain undecided by the Authority for Advance Ruling owing to the dif-
ference in their opinions, was eventually decided by the Appellte Authority for
Advance Ruling vide Order No. MAH/AAAR/SS-RJ/04A/2018-19, dated 6-8-
2018 [2018 (15) G.S.T.L. 727 (App. A.A.R. - GST)]. The Appellate Authority for
Advance Ruling vide the aforesaid order had held that the Appellant was not
eligible to claim ITC in respect of the Cash Carry Vans, which were used to carry
cash as a part of the services provided to their clients as it was observed that the
cash or currency, being transported by the Appellant will not be considered as
goods as per the definition of the goods provided in Section 2(52) of the CGST
Act, which inter alia categorically excludes money from the purview of the goods.
Aggrieved by the said AAAR Order dated 6-8-2018, the Appellant had
filed writ petition in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Thereafter, Hon’ble High
Court, vide its order dated 9-7-2019 [2019 (28) G.S.T.L. 27 (Bom.)], set aside the
impugned AAAR order dated 6-8-2018 and directed AAAR to hear and decide
the case after considering various submissions made by the Appellant.
In view of the aforesaid Hon’ble Bombay High Court Order, we set out
to decide the subject-question asked by the Appellant vide the advance ruling
application, filed by them before the Advance Ruling Authority, and which was
eventually referred to us in terms of Section 98(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.
At the outset, we will reproduce the relevant facts of the case below.
Brief facts of the case
1. The Appellant is having cash management network pan India. Dur-
ing the course of providing the cash management services, the appellant is en-
gaged in the following activities :
• Providing ATMs and installing the same at various locations across
India.
• Managing cash circulation through transporting cash from currency
chest to bank branches.
• Cash pick-up and delivery from and to dedicated banks.
2. Such transportation of cash is done through the security vans popu-
larly known as “cash carry vans”. The appellant purchases raw motor vehicles
and requisite fabrication, get them converted to cash carry vans. The appellant
also pays GST on fabrication. For this purpose, the appellant purchases motor
vehicle and pays GST. Credit of GST is not availed by the appellant presently.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  201