The Greater Chennai Police v. Union of India

Madras HC12 Dec 2025WP/6280/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service tax on police 'bundobast'/security services; Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate v. Union of India and GST/Central Excise authorities; Finance Act, 1994 Chapter V and VA; Section (105) (w) 'security agency'; Section 64(94); General Clauses Act Section 6(42) definition of 'person'; sovereign functions; G.O. No. 949 dated 06.11.2009 tariff (guard charges and escort duty); Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-001COM-52&53-2015-2016 dated 14.10.2015 quashed; writ petitions allowed, no costs; taxability post 01.06.2012 left open; Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (CESTAT, 2017 (48) STR 275) explained and Supreme Court dismissal referred; Madras High Court, decision date 12.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions allowed; order dated 14.10.2015 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶130

The Greater Chennai Police Vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All writ petitions allowed; order dated 14.10.2015 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶130

Issue for consideration

Whether the bundobast/security services rendered by the Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, the Chennai Police Act, 1888 and State Government Orders are exempt from service tax, being outside the scope of Chapter V and VA of the Finance Act, 1994. +3 more

¶44

Court's answer

The bundobast services rendered by the officers of the Commissionerate admittedly fall under the sweep of their official duties, and the subject services stand encompassed within, and are in the nature of, sovereign functions.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the service recipients are governmental and private entities, there is no difference in the nature of services rendered by the petitioner; the services continue to be in the nature of a public service and part of sovereign functions.

¶68

Key takeaways

For the period in question (May, 2006 to December, 2011), the definition of 'person' upon whom service tax liability could be fastened did not include the Government; adopting the General Clauses Act definition (cited as per Section 6(42)), the Government was not an entity liable to tax at the relevant point in time.ratio¶104
On the short ground that the Government was not an entity liable to service tax for the relevant period, the petitioner succeeds and the impugned order cannot stand.ratio¶124
The question of taxability for the period post 01.06.2012 (and liability for service tax subsequent to 01.07.2012) is left open; the writ petitions were decided only on the question of assumption of jurisdiction and none of the other points agitated were decided.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (made by Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.) in W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016 filed by the Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate. The petitioner sought (i) a declaration that its activities under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and State Government Orders lie outside Chapter V and VA of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) quashing of Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-001COM-52&53-2015-2016 dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax – I, Chennai; and (iii) a mandamus directing issuance of instructions not to propose, demand or levy service tax on statutory security/'bundobast' services. Held: the services fall within the officers' official duties and are sovereign functions, and the character of the service recipient (governmental or private) makes no difference; liability had been fastened under Section (105) (w) of Finance Act 1994 defining a 'security agency'. For the period in question (May, 2006 to December, 2011) the definition of 'person' liable to service tax did not include the Government; adopting the General Clauses Act definition cited as per Section 6(42), the Government was not an entity liable to tax, and on this short ground the petitioner succeeded. All writ petitions allowed; order dated 14.10.2015 quashed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Taxability for the period post 01.06.2012 / subsequent to 01.07.2012 was expressly left open, as was any finding on whether the G.O. tariff amounts contain a profit element. The CESTAT decision in Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (2017 (48) STR 275) and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's appeal were noticed in the course of the discussion.

¶1

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.12.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016

¶9

and

¶10

W.M.P.Nos. 5591 & 5592 of 2016

¶11

The Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate Rep. By its Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶12

.. Petitioner in all writ petitions

¶13

¶14

1.Union of India

¶15

Rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶16

2.Government of India

¶17

Rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶18

3.The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate, No.26/1, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶19

4.The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Parrys Division,

¶20

1/15

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶23

Chennai North Commissionerate – I, First Floor, Newry Towers, Plot No.2054 – 1, I Block, 12^th Main Road, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶24

(Respondents amended / ordered vide memo dated 09.12.2025 by this Court vide this order)

¶25

.. Respondents in all writ petitions

¶26

Prayer in W.P.No. 6280 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of declaration declaring the activities of the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 and the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 and under the relevant Government Orders of the State of Tamil Nadu as being outside the scope of the Chapter V and VA Finance Act, 1994.

¶27

Prayer in W.P.No. 6281 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for records of the impugned Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-001COM-52&53-2015-2016 dated 14.10.2015 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same.

¶28

Prayer in W.P.No. 6282 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to issue suitable instruction to subordinate officers to not to propose, demand and / or levy service tax on the petitioner for the statutory service rendered under the provision of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, The Chennai Police Act, 1888 (Formerly the Madras City Police Act, 1888) and relevant Government Order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anishkumar (in all writ petitions)

¶30

For Respondents : Mr.K.Mohana Murali Senior Panel Counsel (in all writ petitions)

¶31

2/15

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶36

A common order is passed in these three writ petitions as the issue that arises for decision is the same across all the matters.

¶37

The prayer in W.P.No. 6280 of 2016 is for a Declaration that the activities of the petitioner rendered under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, the Chennai Police Act, 1888 (formerly the Madras City Police Act, 1888) (referred to hereinafter as ‘enactments’/’relevant enactments’) and Government Orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, are outside the scope of Chapter V and VA of Finance Act, 1994 in terms of which Service tax is levied.

¶38

W.P.No. 6281 of 2016 challenges Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax – I, Chennai – 600 040 / third respondent, and W.P.No. 6282 of 2016 is for a mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to issue suitable instructions to the subordinate officers not to propose demand /or levy service tax on the petitioner for statutory services rendered under the provisions of the

¶39

Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, the Chennai Police Act, 1888 (formerly the Madras City Police Act, 1888) and the relevant Government

¶40

3/15

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶43

Orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶44

The prayer, in common, is for an exemption from the levy of tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax/Service Tax Act) in respect of the services rendered by the petitioner, the Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate in the exercise of its sovereign functions under the aforesaid enactments.

¶45

We have heard detailed submissions advanced by Mr.Anishkumar, for the petitioner and Mr.Mohana Murali, for the respondents.

¶46

Mr.Mohana Murali has filed memo dated 09.12.2025 seeking an amendment to the array of respondents in light of the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 with effect from 01.07.2017. The memo states that post introduction of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, R3 – R5 as originally arrayed have merged. Memo dated 09.12.2025 is ordered and the Registry is directed to make corresponding changes to the array of respondents.

¶47

The submissions of the petitioner are to the effect that the Orderin-Original dated 14.10.2015 is bad in law as there is no liability that could be fastened on the police authorities qua the provision of security/bundobast services to various entities, both State as well as private.

¶48

4/15

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch 8. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the duties of

¶51

the police authorities rendered in terms of the relevant enactments constitute sovereign functions. Under various Government Orders, the State has permitted the authorities to collect certain amounts from the service recipients.

¶52

These receipts are nothing but a reimbursement of the costs to be defrayed by the petitioner in respect of those police officials deputed to render the security services. Hence, and being a measure of reimbursement, there is no profit that is earned by the petitioner and the receipts would hence not fall within the ambit of the Service Tax Act. He relies in specific on G.O. No. 949 dated 06.11.2009.

¶53

Learned counsel for petitioner would also argue that there could be no liability fastened under the Service Tax Act as far as governmental agencies are concerned. In fact, the Commissionerate had approached the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, as early as on 11.10.2012 seeking an exemption from the levy of service tax. That petition is still pending.

¶54

He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner v Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur¹ confirming an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

¶55

1 2018 (11) GSTL J113 (SC)

¶56

5/15

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch (CESTAT) in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur v Commissioner of C.Ex & ST, Jaipur² . In light of the aforesaid submissions, he would pray that the order impugned in W.P.No.6281 of 2016 be quashed and all writ petitions be allowed.

¶59

Mr.Mohana Murali, learned Senior Panel Counsel, would on

¶60

the contrary, defend the order of the Commissioner of the Income Tax, submitting that the functions rendered by the petitioner, in respect of which the amounts have been received, are not in the nature of statutory duties. The duties are rendered in events catering to both private individuals as well as statutory and governmental agencies and hence would not come within the ambit of the enactments relied upon by the petitioner.

¶61

He draws attention to the amounts that are payable under the Government Orders by the service recipients and submits that those amounts are not in the nature of pure reimbursements, but contain an element of profit as well. In fine, he would pray that the impugned order be sustained and the prayer for a direction to the authorities be dismissed, as being devoid of merit.

¶62

We have heard both learned counsel and have considered the material papers as well as the cases relied upon.

¶63

2 2017 (48) STR 275

¶64

6/15

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch 15. The petitioner is the Greater Chennai Police Commissionerate.

¶67

The services rendered by the officers are in the nature of bundobast services, admittedly falling under the sweep of their official duties. Factually therefore, there is no difference in the nature of services rendered by the officers of the Commissionerate to the service recipients, when compared with those rendered in exercise of general public duty. Hence the subject services also stand encompassed within, and are in the nature of sovereign functions.

¶68

We hence do not agree with Revenue that merely because the service recipients are governmental and private entities, there is any difference in the nature of services rendered by the petitioner to those entities. The services, in our view, continue to be in the nature of a public service, and part of sovereign functions.

¶69

The Principal Bench of the CESTAT, New Delhi, had had occasion to consider a similar issue as arising before us in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur³ . Ultimately, the CESTAT took the view that the police department has a statutory and mandatory duty to maintain public peace and order and hence for the exercise of such sovereign functions, no charges would be recoverable from the citizens. They took note of the position that these charges go into the coffers of the

¶70

3Foot note supra 1

¶71

7/15

¶72

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶73

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch State and hence concluded that the police department, an agency of the

¶74

State cannot be considered to be a ‘person engaged in the business of running security services’ .

¶75

The contention of the Department that the police department would come within the definition of security agency ‘services’ under Section 64(94) of the Act was hence negatived, and referring to some circulars issued by the CBIC, the appeal came to be allowed.

¶76

As against that order, the Commissioner of Customs and

¶77

Central Excise approached the Supreme Court, that dismissed the appeal in Dy. Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur v. Commissioner⁴ in the following terms:-

¶78

“1.Heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant and perused the relevant material.

¶79

2.Delay condoned.

¶80

3.In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s). The civil appeal(s) are accordingly dismissed.”

¶81

In the present case too, liability is fastened under the provisions

¶82

of Section (105) (w) of Finance Act 1994, defining a ‘security agency’ as

¶83

follows:-

¶84

‘security agency” means any person engaged in the business of rendering services relating to the security of any property, whether movable or immovable, or of any

¶85

4 2017 (48) STR 275

¶86

8/15

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch person, in any manner and includes the services of investigation, detection or verification, of any fact or activity, whether of a personal nature or otherwise, including the services of providing security personnel’;

¶89

(w) (to any person), by a security agency in relation to the security of any property or person, by providing security personnel or otherwise and includes the provision of services of investigation, detection or verification of any fact or activity;

¶90

The services rendered admittedly fall with the ambit of the above definition. The State has been issuing Government Orders over the years (i) GO No.3022 dated 10.12.1979, (ii) GO No.215 dated 31.01.1986, (iii) GO No.299 dated 11.02.1987, (iv) GO No.919 dated 11.08.2008, (v) GO No. 949 dated 06.11.2009 and GO No. 249 dated 21.03.2017). The G.O.s., provide for the collection of charges from service recipients and the tariff set out under GO No.949 dated 06.11.2009 reads as follows:-

¶91

(i) Rate of Guard Charges

¶92

Sl.No.	Rank of the Police Personnel Average amount of rate fixed for collection of charges per month per each personnel. (including Travelling Allowance 14% on Pay, Pension
	Contribution 10% on Pay, Other
	Concession at 25% on Pay
	(Including LTC, clothing, supervision charges and leave salary contribution)] (in Rs.)

¶93

9/15

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶95

		W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch
1	Superintendent of Police/ Commandant	1,23,924/-
2	Additional Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Commandant	1,20,812/-
3	Deputy Superintendent of Police(Cat-I,II and III)	1,16,700/-
4	Inspector of Police (Cat – I,II and III)	97, 463/-
5	Sub Inspector of Police (Cat – I, II and III)	96,436/-
6	Head Constable (Cat – I, II and III)	56,539/-
7	Grade I Police Constable (Cat – I, II and III)	55,168/-
8	Grade II Police Constable (Cat – I,II and III)	53,254/-
9	Followers Barber and Cook	31,508/-
	Dhobi and Sweeper	31,165/-

¶96

* 10% Additional Amount on total pay per month may be added on 1^st January, every year towards increase in dearness allowance component and other allowances / any other eligible allowance will be charged extra.

¶97

(ii) Standard Charges for Escort Duty

¶98

Sl.No.	Details of Police Escort Deployed	Below 12 hrs	Above 12 hrs	One day	One day and less than 12 hrs
1	Inspector of Police (10% supervising charges and 10% of amenities fund has to be added with the ratesfixed to be	1624	2437	3249	4873
10/15

¶99

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

	remitted into Government Account)			W.P.Nos. 6280	of 2016 etc batch
2	Sub-Inspector of Police	1607	2411	3215	4822
3	Head Constable	942	1414	1885	2827
4	Grade-I Police Constable	919	1379	1839	2758

¶101

(Full day = Guard Charges Per Month / 30. Below 12 Hrs = 50% of full day charge and Above 12 Hrs = 75% of full day charge).

¶102

We are told that the rates fixed as per the above tariff constitute a reimbursement of the amounts payable to the police personnel for their regular services. However, no computation is available in support of the same. The above tariff indicates that the quantum of payment for the deputation of the officer is specific, and includes various components of pay.

¶103

We are unaware as to whether the amounts contain some amount of profit over and above the charges payable to the officers for regular duties. Being a question of fact, and moreover, as it does not impact the decision in this case, we are not inclined to render a finding in this regard.

¶104

However, we find that the definition of ‘person’ upon whom liability of service tax was to be fastened, as it stood for the period in question, being May, 2006 to December, 2011, did not include the 11/15

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶106

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch Government. Hence, one would adopt the definition of ‘person’ under the

¶107

General Clauses Act, which as per Section 6(42), reads thus:-

¶108

“person” shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not;

¶109

It is only under the Finance Act, 1994 on and with effect from

¶110

01.06.2012 that a definition of ‘person’ was inserted in Service tax law,

¶111

reading as follows:-

¶112

“person’ includes,-

¶113

(i) an individual,

¶114

(ii) a Hindu undivided family,

¶115

(iii) a company,

¶116

(iv) a society,

¶117

(v) a limited liability partnership,

¶118

(vi) a firm,

¶119

(vii) an association of persons or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (viii) Government,

¶120

(ix) a local authority, or

¶121

(x) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the preceding sub-clauses;”

¶122

Hence, at the relevant point in time and for the period in

¶123

question therefore, the Government was not an entity liable to tax. On this

¶124

short ground, the petitioner succeeds.

¶125

As far as the period post 01.06.2012 is concerned, we leave the

¶126

question of taxability open. We have decided the present writ petitions only on the question of assumption of jurisdiction and have not decided any of the other points that have been agitated by the petitioners.

¶127

12/15

¶128

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶129

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch Hence the liability of the petitioner for service tax for the period subsequent to 01.07.2012 is not a subject matter of decision in these writ petitions.

¶130

In light of aforesaid discussion, all writ petitions are allowed and order dated 14.10.2015 is quashed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶131

[A.S.M, J.] [M.S.K, J.] 12.12.2025

¶132

Index:Yes/No

¶133

Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssm

¶134

¶135

1.The Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Room No.46, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶136

2.The Secretary, Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶137

3.The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate, No.26/1, Uttamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶138

13/15

¶139

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶140

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶141

4.The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise,

¶142

Parrys Division, Chennai North Commissionerate – I, First Floor, Newry Towers, Plot No.2054 – 1, I Block, 12^th Main Road, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶143

14/15

¶144

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶145

W.P.Nos. 6280 of 2016 etc batch

¶146

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J. and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶147

ssm

¶148

W.P.Nos. 6280, 6281 & 6282 of 2016