Page 209 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. 575
under Section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017, which has been reproduced herein-
under :
(75) ”money” means the Indian legal tender or any foreign currency,
cheque, promissory note, bill of exchange, letter of credit, draft, pay order,
traveler’s cheque, money order, postal or electronic remittance or any other
instrument recognized by the Reserve Bank of India when used as a con-
sideration to settle an obligation or exchange with Indian legal tender of
another denomination but shall not include any currency that is held for its
numismatic value;
40. Now when it has been established that the Appellant cannot use the
money, which belong to their clients, at any stage of the activities carried out by
them, thus ruling out any possibility of the subject money, transported by them,
as being used as legal tender at any stage of the performance of the services ren-
dered by them, it can adequately be inferred that the subject money, transported
in the cash carry vans by them, ceases to be anything except goods under the
facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. This notion is also strengthened
by the presence of the clause “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
“ in the definitions section provided under Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017,
which implies that meanings assigned to the various terms under this section of
the act is dependent upon the context of the case at hand. In other words, the
meaning of any terms or expressions needs to be comprehended in the context of
the cases under consideration. In the context of the present case, it is unavoidably
warranted to deviate from the literal meaning provided to the term ‘money’ un-
der Section 2(75) of the GST Act, and it has been rightly observed that what is
being transported by the Appellant in their cash-carry van is not money but the
goods for the reasons discussed above.
41. Further, this proposition is also supported by the Rule 138(14) and
its Annexures prescribed under CGST Rules, 2017, relied upon by the Appellant
to establish that the money has been included in the Annexure along side the
other goods specified therein, which will not require any E-way Bill for their
movement or transportation by motorised conveyances by from one place to the
another. It is to be mentioned that Rule 138(14) of the CGST Rules, 2017 specifies
those goods, which do not require E-way Bills for their transportation. On perus-
al of the said rules, it is clearly evident that only goods are mentioned therein as
well as in the annexure thereto. Among those goods, one of the items mentioned
in the annexure bearing the heading “Description of Goods” is ‘money’, which
clearly indicates that the legislature has considered ‘money’ as ‘goods’, when
money is being transported from one place to another. By applying the above
interpretation in the present fact and circumstances of the case in hand, it can
decisively be inferred that money under question is nothing but goods.
42. Further, the Revenue’s contention, wherein they argued that since
the Appellant is using special purpose vehicle to transport the money under the
security and supervision of the armed persons/guards as per the guidelines is-
sued by RBI; that the said RBI guidelines are not applicable to the other goods,
thereby drawing the inference that even RBI as well the entire Banking Industry
treat the said money different from the other goods, and hence ‘money’ cannot
be considered as ‘goods’, is devoid of any merit and is not sustainable, as just
because money is being transported by the customised vehicles, and is given
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  209