Page 207 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. 573
for input tax credit of the GST paid on standard motor vehicle and also the GST
paid on the fabrication of the vehicles to suit the need for cash carrying vehicle in
light of provision under Section 17(5)(a)(ii) read with Section 2(52) and Section
2(75) of CGST Act.
33. The aforesaid hearing was also attended by Shri Rishi Yadav in the
capacity of the Jurisdictional Officer, wherein he reiterated the earlier written
submissions, which had been filed before us.
Discussion and findings
34. We have carefully gone through the entire case records as well as
oral and written submissions made by both the Appellant as well as the Re-
spondent. On perusal of the same, the moot issue, before us, is to determine
whether the money being transported by the Appellant in the cash carry vans
can be construed as “goods” or otherwise for the purposes of determining the
availability of Input Tax Credit of the GST paid on the purchase and fabrication
of the subject transport vehicles.
35. Earlier, we had decided the above said issue vide our Order dated
6-8-2018, wherein we had discarded the Appellant’s contention favouring the
entitlement of the ITC in respect of the subject cash-carry vans, and had held that
since the currency transported by the Appellant in the subject cash carry vans
will not be considered as goods as envisaged under Section 2(52) of the CGST
Act, 2017, accordingly, the ITC of the GST paid on the purchase and fabrication
of the said carriage vehicles would not be available to the Appellant. However,
pursuance to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Order dated 9-7-2019 [2019 (28)
G.S.T.L. 27 (Bom.)] vide which we were directed to reconsider the case under the
light of all the submissions made by the Appellant. The Hon’ble High Court vide
the aforesaid order has observed the following flaws in the impugned AAAR
Order dated 6-8-2018 :
(i) It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the impugned
AAAR Order has not dealt with the Appellant’s principal submis-
sions, wherein it was contended that the money transported by the
Appellant with the aid of cash carry vans would stand covered by
the definition of ‘goods’, provided under Section 2(52) of the GST
Act so long as the same is not used as a legal tender as have been
stipulated under the definition of the money provided under Sec-
tion 2(75) of the GST Act.
(ii) It was also observed by the Hon’ble High Court that the conclusion
drawn by the Appellate Authority inasmuch as ‘money’, prior to the
issuance of Press note, subsequent to the 28th GST Council Meet-
ings, was not included within the definition of ‘goods’ provided
under the GST law on the basis of the notion that it was only during
the 28th GST Council meetings that the GST Council categorically
recommended the availment of ITC even in respect of the Motor
vehicles, used for transportation of money for or by a banking com-
pany or financial institution, is not proper, as the same should have
been examined under the existing definition of the ‘goods’ and
‘money’ provided under the GST Act.

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  207