https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361652 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It was held that the Police Department, being an agency of the State Government, does not qualify as a 'person' engaged in the business of running security services under Section 65 (105) (ee) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision emphasized that the deployment of Police personnel on a payment basis is part of the statutory function of the State Government, thus not constituting a security agency service. The judgment underscores the significance of legal interpretation and precedent in determining the applicability of statutory provisions in such cases. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jun 2018 08:45:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361652 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. It was held that the Police Department, being an agency of the State Government, does not qualify as a 'person' engaged in the business of running security services under Section 65 (105) (ee) of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision emphasized that the deployment of Police personnel on a payment basis is part of the statutory function of the State Government, thus not constituting a security agency service. The judgment underscores the significance of legal interpretation and precedent in determining the applicability of statutory provisions in such cases. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361652