<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (1) TMI 1397 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785641</link>
    <description>Charges collected by the Police Department for security services provided on request, where the levy was fixed under the governing police law and remitted to the Government treasury, were treated as part of its statutory and sovereign functions for public security, peace and order. The binding CBEC circular was applied to clarify that amounts recovered by a sovereign or public authority for performing statutory functions are not liable to service tax when the prescribed conditions are met. On those facts, the Police Department was not regarded as a person engaged in the business of providing security, the activity did not fall within Security Agency Services, and service tax was not leviable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:51:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=881960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1397 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785641</link>
      <description>Charges collected by the Police Department for security services provided on request, where the levy was fixed under the governing police law and remitted to the Government treasury, were treated as part of its statutory and sovereign functions for public security, peace and order. The binding CBEC circular was applied to clarify that amounts recovered by a sovereign or public authority for performing statutory functions are not liable to service tax when the prescribed conditions are met. On those facts, the Police Department was not regarded as a person engaged in the business of providing security, the activity did not fall within Security Agency Services, and service tax was not leviable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>