2024 (7) TMI 483 - HC - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - petitioner represents the Tamil Nadu Police - liability of petitioner to pay service tax for the services rendered by them to various Banks while transportation of cash from currency chest to ATMs of the respective Banks - HELD THAT - After hearing this case on 19.06.2024, a similar Writ Petition came up for hearing on behalf of the SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, EXCISE AND CUSTOMS - INDORE 2023 (12) TMI 906 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - the said Writ Petition was disposed of by giving liberty to file statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai. The CESTAT, Chennai was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of the same without insisting the certified copy of the said order. There are no reason to take a different view in this Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, within a period of 60 days from today, without awaiting for the certified copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay service tax for services rendered to various Banks while transporting cash.
2. Whether the charges recovered by a sovereign or public authority for carrying out statutory functions are liable to service tax.
3. Whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy available.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, representing the Tamil Nadu Police, challenged the demand for service tax on security services provided by the Dindigul Police. The impugned order found the Dindigul Police liable for service tax, interest, and penalties for failure to pay, register, and file returns. The order detailed the services provided by the police, concluding they fall under taxable "Security Agency Services." The petitioner argued that their services, including cash transportation for banks, are statutory functions not subject to service tax. The Special Government Pleader cited tribunal decisions and circulars supporting their position.

2. The petitioner relied on tribunal decisions and circulars exempting charges for statutory functions from service tax if specific conditions are met. The respondent contended that the Writ Petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an alternate remedy. The court noted a similar case disposed of with liberty to appeal before the CESTAT, Chennai, without awaiting the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the petitioner was granted the same liberty to file an appeal within 60 days, with the web copy of the order, for the CESTAT to decide on merits promptly.

3. The court directed the lifting of recovery proceedings pending the appeal filing. If the petitioner fails to appeal within the stipulated time, the respondents can proceed as if no liberty was granted. The judgment disposed of the Writ Petition without costs, allowing for further legal recourse through the statutory appeal process. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.