State of Punjab's Security Services to Banks and Post Office Not Taxable as Business

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that providing security services by the State of Punjab to banks and the General Post Office did not constitute a business but rather a governmental duty. As such, the imposition of service tax on these transactions was deemed impermissible under Article 289 of the Constitution of India. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders for service tax recovery, and directed refunds of any amounts already paid to the State within three months.

---

---

Issues:
Challenges to orders raising demand of service tax on security services provided to banks and General Post Office by the State of Punjab. Interpretation of Article 289 of the Constitution of India regarding exemption of State property and income from Union taxation.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a series of petitions challenging orders raising demands for service tax on security services provided by the State of Punjab to various banks and the General Post Office. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Article 289 of the Constitution of India, which exempts State property and income from Union taxation but allows for taxation on trade or business carried out by the State. The petitioners argued that providing security services is not a trade or business conducted by the State and falls under the ordinary functions of the government, thus exempt from taxation.

The respondents contended that the amounts charged for security services provided to public sector banks are subject to service tax under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. They argued that the State cannot evade tax liability on such receipts. The court examined the provisions of Article 289, emphasizing that while the State's property and income are exempt from Union taxation, taxation may apply to trade or business activities conducted by the State or connected operations as authorized by Parliament.

The court concluded that providing security services does not constitute a business carried out by the State but rather a duty of the government. As the security services were not provided to private individuals and the amounts were charged due to increased security requirements, the imposition of service tax on such transactions was deemed impermissible due to constitutional restrictions. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the orders directing the recovery of service tax were set aside. Any amounts already paid were directed to be refunded to the State within three months from the date of the order.

---