TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strict Banswara to show cause as to why the service tax of Rs. 42,19,235/- for providing services under Security Agency Services may not be recovered alongwith the interest at the prevailing rates and the penalties prescribed under Section 76, 75 and 78 of the Finance Act be not imposed. The demand as proposed vide the said SCN was confirmed initially by Order-in-Original No. 1156 dated 22.02.2013 and was subsequently confirmed vide the impugned order under challenge. Resultantly, the present Appeal. 2. We have heard Mr. Keshav Dutta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Maji, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. Ld. Counsel has impressed upon that the issue is no more res integra. Orders of this Tribunal namely, Final Order Nos. 52156....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as follows: (a) to enforce the law and to protect life, liberty, property rights, dignity and human rights of the people; (b) to prevent crime and public nuisance; (c) to maintain public order; (d) to preserve internal security, prevent and control terrorist activities and to prevent breach of public peace; (e) to protect public property; (f) to detect offences and bring the offenders to justice; (g) to apprehend persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist; (h) to help people in situation arising out of natural or manmade disaster; and to assist other agencies in relief measures; (i) to facilitate orderly movement of people and vehicles and to control and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t etc., for monetary gain, as may, for the purpose of public security or for the maintenance of public peace or order, require deployment of additional police force, such user charges as may be prescribed. As per Section 35 of the said Act, "No police office shall engage in an employment or office whatsoever, other than his duties under this Act, unless expressly permitted to do so in writing by the State Government." Thus, police officer is by law bound to maintain law and order and it cannot be considered as an agency engaged in business of providing security. Also for the reason that amount so collected by the appellant was deposited to Government Treasury, it was not the income in its hand. The issue has earlier been discussed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is to be deposited into Government treasury. As per the requirement of the General Finance Account Rules issued by the Rajasthan State Government, the Government dues are to be collected and paid into the Government treasury. The Appellant, therefore, is required to collect the usage charges and credit the same in the Rajasthan State Government treasury. The submission made by the police department in this regard is that the fees recovered by them is for provision of additional police force. They have referred to Section 46 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 and submitted that the additional police officers are deployed at the request of any person only for the purpose of public security or for the maintenance of public peace or order. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on issued by the State Govt. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the activity of deploying police personnel on payment basis is to be considered as part of statutory function of the State Govt. and the fees recovered are to be considered as statutory. It is also not disputed that such amounts recovered have been deposited into the Govt. treasury. 13. On the basis of the above discussion, we conclude that police department, which is an agency of the State Govt., cannot be considered to be a "person" engaged in the business of running security services. Consequently, the activity undertaken by the police is not covered by the definition of Security Agency under Section 64(94) of the Act. We also find that in terms of CBEC circular....