Page 206 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

572 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
carrying bullion. In the present case vehicle is capital goods under Section 2(19)
and hence even if it is used in stray cases in transportation of bullion input tax
credit is admissible as there is no bar from taking credit and in any case, the Ap-
pellant are not making any exempt supplies.
26. With the above submission and those made in their applications
and additional submissions, it is humbly prayed for holding that Appellant are
eligible and entitled for input tax credit of GST paid by them to vehicle manufac-
turers for supply of standard vehicles and GST paid on the fabrication. The Ap-
pellate Authority for Advance Ruling may also be pleased to hold cash carry
vans would be covered under exclusion clause of 17(5)(a)(ii) of CGST.
Submission made by the respondent
27. In response to the above submissions made by the Appellant, the
respondent, in this case the ‘Jurisdictional Officer’ has filed their reply, which is
being reproduced hereunder :
28. The applicant is engaged in the services of transportation of cash.
The cash carrying vans cannot be treated merely as transport vehicles, carrying
the goods as claimed by the appellant, as it is a special purpose vehicle which is
deployed to collect the currency under the security guards with arms and with 2
supervisors as per the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India letter dated 6th April,
2018.
29. The appellant transports and manages “the money” which is differ-
ent from ‘goods’ even in the eyes of the banking industry and RBI. It is because
of this reason that the RBI has prescribed special safeguards specifically for “the
money”. The fact that these safeguards are prescribed by the RBI are not applica-
ble to goods clearly establishes that RBI considers the money as different from
goods. Similarly, in the eyes of the banking industry also the money is not goods.
Therefore, in the context of the situation in which the appellant is working,
‘money’ cannot be considered as ‘goods’. Accordingly, only because the defini-
tion of ‘goods’ under the CGST Act, 2017, contains the phrase “unless the context
otherwise requires” does not mean that, the context of the appellant requires a
definition of goods is different from one as prescribed in the CGST Act, 2017.
30. The appellant contention that provision of Motor Vehicle Act and
the exclusion of money from the scope of e-Way bill should take precedence over
the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, has been made without having any rational
or basis. It is emphasized that the CGST Act has provided an unambiguous and
clear definition of ‘goods’. Therefore, there is no need for resorting to the provi-
sions of Motor Vehicle Act for looking for the meaning of ‘goods. Further, the
exclusion of the ‘money’ from the scope of the e-way bill has no bearing on the
definition of the ‘goods’ provided in the CGST Act. The contention of the appel-
lant in this regard is bereft of any merit, hence not sustainable.
31. Accordingly, they had prayed that the application filed by the Ap-
plicant be rejected by the appellate authority.
Personal Hearing
32. A personal Hearing in the matter was conducted on 14-10-2019,
where Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, reit-
erated their earlier written submissions filed before us. Vide the said written
submissions, she averred that the Appellant were lawfully eligible and entitled
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  206