Profit motive not mandatory for service tax liability where security services are rendered regularly for consideration.

A statutory corporation rendering security agency services was treated as a commercial concern engaged in business for service tax purposes, because the statutory phrase did not require a profit motive in every case; regular service for consideration, commercial billing and accounting were sufficient, so the taxable category applied. On limitation, the amended regime was held applicable and the demand was not barred on the assessee's objection, because a subsisting cause of action was not extinguished by the amendment absent clear statutory language. The levy and demand were sustained, and no substantial question of law was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statutory corporation providing security agency services was a "commercial concern" engaged in business so as to fall within the taxable service definition, notwithstanding the absence of profit motive; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation under the service tax provision was available on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a statutory corporation providing security agency services was a "commercial concern" engaged in business so as to fall within the taxable service definition, notwithstanding the absence of profit motive.

Analysis: The charging scheme imposed service tax on every service provider on the value of taxable service, and value was computed on the gross amount charged. The statutory definition of security agency required a commercial concern engaged in business of rendering security services. The word "business" was held not to import a mandatory profit motive in every case. What mattered was that the service was rendered regularly for consideration and not as a gratis or casual activity. The corporation charged commercial rates, maintained accounts, and functioned in a manner consistent with a commercial concern.

Conclusion: The corporation fell within the taxable category and the objection based on absence of profit motive was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation under the service tax provision was available on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court held that the amended limitation regime governed the matter and that the existence of a subsisting cause of action was not destroyed by the amendment. The earlier and later limitation provisions were considered in the context of whether the demand could still be raised, and it was concluded that the demand was not barred on the ground urged by the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be available and the challenge on limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The service tax levy and the demand were sustained, and the appeal failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining liability to service tax under a definition referring to a commercial concern engaged in business, profit motive is not invariably essential; and limitation amendments do not extinguish a subsisting cause of action unless the statute clearly so provides.

---