9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 615 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice - whether the vans / motor vehicles in which the petitioners were transporting cash, would be money for the purpose of Section 2(52) of the GST Act - the issue not considered by AARA - HELD THAT - The money would stand covered by the definition of 'goods' under Section 2(52) of the GST Act so long as the same is not used as legal tender. This on the basis of the definition of money provided in Section 2(75) of the GST Act. The aforesaid principal submission though recorded, has not been dealt with at all in the impugned order. Reliance placed in the impugned order upon the press note issued subsequent to a GST Council recommending to allow of input tax credit in respect of the motor vehicles used for transportation of money, would not by itself lead to the conclusion that prior thereto, money was not included within the definition of goods. This has to examined in terms of the definition of 'goods' and 'money' found in GST Act. The entire issue before the AARA as raised by the petitioner was whether the vans / motor vehicles in which the petitioners were transporting cash, would be money for the purpose of Section 2(52) of the GST Act. This aspect has not been dealt with in the impugned order dated 6th August, 2018 of the AARA - the decision making process has not been complied with by the Authority. It is necessary for the Authority to consider the submissions made by the parties before it and give its findings in the context of the submissions made. Ignoring a submission would render the order vulnerable to judicial review by this Court. Matter restored to AARA - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order of Maharashtra Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AARA) on availability of input tax credit on purchase of motor vehicles for cash management business under GST Act. Analysis: 1. The petition challenged the AARA's order ruling that input tax credit is not available on the purchase of motor vehicles for cash management. The petitioner sought an advance ruling on whether motor vehicles sold as scrap post-usage would attract GST and if input tax credit is available on such purchases. 2. The ARA answered affirmatively that motor vehicles sold as scrap post-usage are taxable under GST. However, there was a disagreement on the availability of input tax credit, leading to a reference to AARA under Section 98(5) of the CGST Act. 3. The impugned order held that input tax credit is not available on the purchase of motor vehicles for cash management, citing that money is excluded from the definition of goods under the GST Act, thus not eligible for input tax credit as per Section 17(5) of the GST Act. 4. The petitioner challenged the decision-making process of the AARA, arguing that the definition of 'goods' should include money as per Section 2(75) of the GST Act when not used as legal tender. The court noted that the AARA failed to address this principal submission in its order. 5. The court emphasized that the AARA must consider all submissions made by parties before making a decision. Ignoring a submission renders the order vulnerable to judicial review, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the AARA for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. 6. The court's decision was based on the principle of judicial review, focusing on the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The AARA was directed to reconsider the issue of input tax credit on the purchase of motor vehicles for cash management, ensuring a thorough examination of all relevant submissions. 7. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper consideration of submissions by the authority to avoid judicial review challenges. The court's intervention aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair and reasoned decision-making process in matters concerning tax laws under the GST Act.
|
