Page 205 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. 571
19. The provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assigned meaning to
“goods” under Section 2(13), “goods carriage” under Section 2(14) and
“transport vehicle” under Section 2(47) would also substantiate that the currency
would be treated as goods. The said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow :
2. Definition. - In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
…….
………
(13) ’goods’ includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment or-
dinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons,
but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in
a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers trav-
elling in the vehicle;
(14) ’goods carriage’ means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for
use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed
or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;
………
………
(47) ’transport vehicle’ means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage,
an educational institutions bus or a private service vehicle;
………
20. Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28-6-2017 at Sr.
No. 117 provides full exemption for Rupee notes when sold to Reserve Bank of
India falling under Chapter/Heading 48/4907 would also substantiate the Ap-
pellants’ claim that currency is covered under “goods”.
21. The certificate of registration and also certificate of fitness issued by
the Motor Vehicle Department of Govt. of Maharashtra certifying cash carrying
vans to be a ‘goods carrier’ and ‘goods vehicle’ also support the Appellant stand.
22. From the certificate of registration, certificate of fitness issued under
Motor Vehicle Act and after considering the meaning assigned to the ‘goods’ un-
der Section 2(13), “goods carriage” under Section 2(14) and “transport vehicle”
under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the cash carry vans
are used for transportation of goods. Hence, Revenue authorities cannot take a
different view under GST.
23. It is further submitted that the Appellant are carrying out the busi-
ness as defined in Section 2(17) of the CGST Act and without currency being
transported by the Appellant could not have rendered supply of business sup-
port service on which GST is paid. Hence denial of input tax credit of tax paid on
motor vehicle converted into cash carry van is incorrect.
24. In support of their arguments, the Appellant have relied upon the
following judgments :
(a) (Printer Mysore) - 1994 (2) SCC 434
(b) Thomas Cook -1994 (71) E.L.T. 724 (T)
(c) Anyanwu Marteena - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 750 (GOI)
25. The Applicant refers to the view expressed by both the Hon’ble
Members to the effect that there is no issue of admissibility when the vehicle is
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  205