Page 204 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

570 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
11. On careful consideration of the meaning assigned to the expression
“money”, it would be clear that the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency,
cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit draft, pay order, travel-
er cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other instrument
recognized by the Reserve Bank of India, only when used as consideration to set-
tle the obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of another denomination
would be considered as “money”.
12. In the instant case, the currency transported by the appellant is for
the purpose of carrying out the business of maintaining ATMs by the Appellant
and hence, the Appellant are not using the same as a consideration for settling of
any obligation. The job assigned to the appellant is for the transportation of cur-
rency to the desired destination as per their customer banks and while carrying
out the activity of transportation, the said currency is plain goods for the Appel-
lants and cannot be used/is not used in exchange of other Indian legal tender of
another denomination.
13. In other words, although in general understanding, what is being
transported by the appellants is currency or cash or money, from the Appellant’s
point of view or for the appellant, what is transported is ‘goods’ and not ‘money’
as the said goods being transported would not serve the same purpose of ‘mon-
ey’ as in the normal circumstances the money in hands of a person would serve
i.e. for the payment of purchases/settlement of dues/discharge of debts etc.;
14. It is once again reiterated that currency/cash is being transported
by the Appellants and in support thereof, copy of CA Certificate dated 25-9-2017
and Draft Red Herring prospectus dated 27-9-2017 is enclosed.
15. In view of the above, the cash carry vans are used for transportation
of goods as the currency being transported is not covered under the definition of
‘money’ and since the motor vehicle converted into the cash carry vans are used
for transportation of goods, input tax credit of tax paid is admissible going by the
exclusion from the bar on availability of input tax credit as stipulated under Sec-
tion 17(5)(a)(ii) of CGST Act.
16. Section 2 of the CGST Act assigning meanings to various terms
used under CGST Act begins with the expression “In this act, unless context oth-
erwise requires”. Normally, the term ‘means’ makes the definition exhaustive
one but such exhaustive definition has to be departed from if the definition sec-
tion opens with the word “unless context otherwise requires” if there be some-
thing in the context to show that the definition could not be applied.
17. In the present case, the context in which the cash carry vans are
used for transportation of currency is that the goods of the customer banks are
transported by the Appellant and not the money as defined under Section 2(75)
of the CGST Act as the said currency cannot be used as money as understood in
the common parlance. Further, the intention of the legislature in excluding mon-
ey from the definition of “goods” is not to levy CGST on supply of money as
otherwise CGST is leviable on supplies of intra-State supply of goods.
18. Rule 138(14) which carves out goods the transportation of which
would not require the preparation of e-way bill. The said rule specifically men-
tioning “currency” under the title “description of goods” further substantiates
the contention of the Appellant that the currency transported by the cash carry
van is “goods”.
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  204