C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. Vs. Commissioner

The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the decision made by the Maharashtra Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AARA) on 6th August 2018. This decision, rendered under Section 101 of both the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), denied the availability of input tax credit for the purchase of motor vehicles intended for transporting cash.

The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of tax laws concerning input tax credit and its applicability to the acquisition of motor vehicles for cash transportation purposes. The petitioner contends that the ruling by AARA unjustly excludes such purchases from eligibility for input tax credit, thereby imposing an undue financial burden.

In challenging this ruling, the petition raises constitutional concerns regarding the interpretation and application of tax laws, particularly in relation to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness enshrined within the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, the petitioner likely argues that denying input tax credit for such purchases could lead to adverse consequences for businesses, particularly those involved in cash-intensive operations, impacting their competitiveness and financial viability.

The outcome of this petition holds significance not only for the petitioner but also for businesses operating within Maharashtra, as it could set a precedent for the interpretation and application of tax laws relating to input tax credit in similar contexts. Ultimately, the court’s decision will determine the extent to which input tax credit can be claimed for the purchase of motor vehicles used for cash transportation purposes under the GST regime.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 6th August, 2018, issued by the Maharashtra Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AARA). This order was made under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The crux of the dispute lies in the AARA’s ruling that input tax credit cannot be claimed on the purchase of motor vehicles intended for transporting cash.

Initially, the petitioner had sought an advance ruling from the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) on two specific legal questions. However, the AARA’s subsequent ruling diverged from the petitioner’s expectations and interpretation of the law. The central contention revolves around the eligibility of input tax credit concerning the purchase of motor vehicles designated for cash transportation purposes.

In essence, the petitioner contests the AARA’s decision, arguing that it contravenes their understanding of the applicable statutes and their entitlement to input tax credit. The outcome of this legal challenge carries significant implications for businesses involved in cash transportation activities, as it delineates the scope of input tax credit eligibility under the GST regime.

he petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India disputes the ruling issued by the Maharashtra Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AARA) on August 6, 2018, pursuant to Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The AARA’s order stated that input tax credit would not be available for the purchase of motor vehicles used to transport cash. The petitioner initially sought an advance ruling from the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) on two legal questions. The first question, regarding the taxation of motor vehicles sold as scrap, was answered affirmatively by the ARA on March 19, 2018. However, a disagreement arose among the ARA members regarding the second question, prompting a reference to the AARA under Section 98(5) of the CGST Act.

The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order issued on 6th August 2018 by the Maharashtra Appellate Advance Ruling Authority (AARA). This order, made under Section 101 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, ruled that input tax credit is not available on the purchase of motor vehicles intended for carrying cash. The petitioner initially sought an advance ruling from the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) regarding two specific legal questions.

The first question inquired whether motor vehicles sold as scrap would be subject to Goods and Services Tax (GST), which the ARA affirmed in the affirmative through an order dated 19th March 2018. However, regarding the second question, there was a disagreement among the members of the AAR, leading to a reference to the AARA under Section 98(5) of the CGST Act.

The impugned order, dated 6th August 2018, addressed the second question referred to the AARA. It concluded that input tax credit would not be available on the purchase of motor vehicles designated for cash transportation, such as cash carry vans. This decision was primarily based on the exclusion of money from the definition of goods as provided under the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the purchase of such vehicles was deemed ineligible for input tax credit under Section 17(5) of the GST Act.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: