2019 (11) TMI 250 - AT - Service Tax

Police Department Not Liable for Service Tax on Bank Security Services

The Tribunal held that the Police Department providing security services to a bank was not liable to pay service tax under the category of 'Security ... Security services - appellant had provided guards to various branches of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur(SBBJ) in Sawai Madhopur district and conducted verifications - demand of service tax alongwith interest - CBEC Circular No. 89/07/2006-ST dated 18/12/2006 - if the Police provides guards to banks or other commercial concerns and charges a fee as per the rates determined by the Government whether service tax can be charged under “Security Agency Services” on such fee or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the definition of “Security Agency” shows that it has to be “any person engaged in the business of providing security”. Police provide security as a part of their statutory obligations. In most cases they do not charge any fee for such security but in some cases they charge a fee as determined by the State Government. Merely because they are charging a fee, Police do not become “person engaged in the business of providing security”. As per clarification issued by the CBEC Circular No. 89/07/2006-ST dated 18/12/2006 charges recovered by any sovereign or public authority for carrying out any statutory function will not be liable for service tax fees if three conditions are fulfilled. There is no doubt in the entire proceedings that the amount so received was deposited in the Government treasury. Thus, all conditions required in the above circular of CBEC are fulfilled. Therefore, no service tax chargeable under Security Agency Services upon the Appellant. The CBEC circular being binding on the department, a demand to the contrary is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for providing security services to a bank under the category of 'Security Agency Services' as per the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal alleging that the appellant, a public servant providing security services, had evaded paying service tax amounting to a specific sum during a certain period. The appellant contended that as a Police Department, they were not engaged in profit-making activities and were mandated by law to provide security to the public, thereby exempting them from service tax liability. However, the Revenue argued that the appellant's activities fell under the definition of 'Security Agency Service' as per the Finance Act, 1994. The lower authorities confirmed the demand for service tax and interest, but refrained from imposing penalties.The appellant further argued that under the Rajasthan State laws, the Police Department's provision of security services to banks was not covered under 'Security Agency Service.' They highlighted that the Police Department's activities were in line with statutory obligations, and any fees collected were deposited into the Government treasury. The appellant emphasized that the Police Department was not a 'security agency' engaged in the business of providing security services for profit.After considering both sides' arguments and perusing the records, the Tribunal analyzed whether the Police Department providing security services and charging fees could be taxed under 'Security Agency Services.' The Tribunal referred to a CBEC Circular stating that charges collected by sovereign or public authorities for statutory functions were not liable for service tax if specific conditions were met. The Tribunal found that the Police Department fulfilled all conditions outlined in the Circular, including depositing collected fees into the Government treasury. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no service tax was chargeable on the appellant for providing security services.The Tribunal also referenced similar decisions in other cases involving Police Departments providing security services and upheld those decisions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.