Page 208 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

574 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
36. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble High Court, we set
out to reconsider the submissions made by the Appellant afresh. The Appellant
had, inter alia, submitted that they were mainly engaged in the business of ATM
cash replenishment services, cash delivery and pick up services, management
consultancy services etc. They further submitted that in GST, they had registered
themselves under business support services having SAC 99859, and were dis-
charging their GST liability on the entire value charged for supply of the said
support services. They, further, submitted that they had to purchase the motor
vehicles and fabricate/design the same as per the guidelines issued by the Re-
serve Bank of India, which are then used to transport the cash/bullions as a part
of the cash replenishment/management services agreed to be provided to their
clients as per the terms of the agreement entered with them. They further submit-
ted that the money being transported by the cash carry vans under question was
nothing but ‘goods’ for them as they could not use such money for any purpose
whatsoever, as they were simply acting as bailee for their clients. In other words,
these moneys are not used as legal tender at any stage of the services rendered
by them, and hence those cannot be considered as money in accordance with its
definition provided under Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thus, they con-
tended that in the context of their transactions, the currency being transported by
them in the cash carry vans is not money, but is rather goods for them.
37. The Appellant have also adverted to the definitions section provid-
ed under Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017, which starts with the clause “In this
Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -“. By placing reliance on the said
clause of the definition section, they emphasized that the meaning assigned to
‘money’ provided under Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017 needs to be under-
stood in the context of the services provided by them. They have also referred to
the Rule 138(14) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which provides the list of the goods,
which do not require the e-way bills for their movement or transportation by the
motor vehicles from one place to the another. In the aforesaid rules, currency has
been specified as one of those goods, which do not require e-way bill for their
transportation from one place to another.
38. On careful consideration of the aforesaid submissions and facts of
the case, placed before us, we are inclined to concur with the Appellant’s conten-
tion as to what is being transported by them in the cash-carry vans is not the
money but the goods for them, as they cannot use such money for any purpose,
whatsoever. This fact is also emanating from the Clause 2.7 of the agreement en-
tered between the Appellant (referred in the Agreement as “COMPANY”) and
its client Canbank Computer Services Ltd. (CCSL), which is being reproduced
hereinunder :
“2.7 The COMPANY warrants that cash given to the COMPANY for re-
plenishment of ATMs shall be used strictly in accordance with the instruc-
tion of CCSL. The Company shall not use any of such cash :-
(i) for the requirements of any of their other customers and/or;
(ii) for any other Bank’s transactions;
(iii) for any other use by the COMPANY.”
39. Now, we would like to examine the above transactional facts per-
taining to the Appellant’s activities vis-à-vis the meaning of money as envisaged

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  208