Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (3) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act. The amounts so recovered have been deposited into Government treasury under different heads. Whether providing armed security guards to public sector undertakings, State/Central Government Departments or other persons is covered under Security Agency Service or not? - HELD THAT:- The issue is decided in the case of THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VERSUS C.C.E,S.T. - BHAVNAGAR [ 2018 (8) TMI 1103 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that police department, which is an agency of the State Govt., cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services. Thus, the appellants are not liable to pay service tax being appellants are discharging sovereign functions in terms of Kerala State Police Act. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of police personnel supplied to public departments, private companies and persons etc. 26 bills were raised and amounts were deposited in the Government treasury from the service recipients. The security agency services has been brought under service tax net w.e.f. 16/10/1998 and as per Section 65(96) of the Finance Act, 1994, security agency means any person engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of any person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any act or activity, whether of a personal nature or otherwise, including the services of providing security personnel . Further as per Section 65(105)( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and security guards to various public sector banks / undertakings, Government Departments, KSEB, Oil companies etc. in terms of Section 8 of the Kerala State Police Act. The appellant is charging nominal amount for providing security guards as fixed by the Government of Kerala from time to time and amount so collected is credited directly to the treasury of Government under the specific heads. Therefore, the act of the appellant is in nature of sovereign function of the State and appellant is not engaged in any business activity for providing security personnel but is providing police protection to life and liberty of person and property; therefore, appellant is not liable to pay service tax. He also took shelter of the CBEC Circular No.89/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On the other hand, the learned AR supported the impugned orders and drew our attention to the CBEC Circular dt. 18/12/2006 to say that the activity undertaken for consideration is not in nature of statutory fee or levy; then in such cases, service tax would be leviable if activity undertaken falls under the ambit of service tax. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions in detail. 6.1. We find that in this case, the appellant is a Police Department governed by the State of Kerala. The appellant is discharging the function of security of property and person. Apart from that, appellant is providing certain security personnel to certain Government agencies, Central/State, public sector undertakings and other private persons and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Others, where it was concluded that the police department which is in the agency of State Government cannot be considered to be a person engaged in the business of running security services. The CESTAT in the said decision has held that the activity undertaken by the police is not covered by the definition of security agency under Section 64(94) of the Finance Act, 1994. 4.8 The same view has been expressed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mumbai Police Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I [2018-TIOL-1067-CESTAT-MUM]. 6.3. As the issue has already been settled by various decisions of this Tribunal, therefore, issue is no more res integra. Accordingly, we hold that appellants are not liable to pay service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates