9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 236 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by the EPF MP Act, and the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res-integra, as identical issue for the earlier periods in respect of the appellant has been decided by this Tribunal, in favour of the appellant in M/S EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION VERSUS OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NEW DELHI 2023 (5) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/S EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION VERSUS CST, DELHI 2017 (4) TMI 902 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that the appellants are not liable to pay service tax on their statutory activities performed in terms of EPM MP Act, 1952. The appellants are not providing any taxable service to the employers covered by the said Act. The relationship and transaction between the employers and the appellant is in discharge of statutory and compulsory obligations, coercively enforceable by the law. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to service tax liability on statutory functions performed by M/s Employees Provident Fund Organisation, specifically whether services provided under statutory obligations are taxable and whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax on their activities mandated by the EPF & MP Act. Summary: Issue 1 - Service Tax Liability on Statutory Functions: The appeal was filed by M/s Employees Provident Fund Organisation against the Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 2,12,08,03,074/- along with penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The department alleged that the appellant was providing Banking and Financial Services without being registered with the Service Tax department. The appellant argued that they were performing statutory functions as mandated by the EPF & MP Act and the Constitution of India. They contended that services provided under statutory obligations are not taxable as per Board's Circular. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the appellant for earlier periods, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the previous decisions and the dismissal of the Department's appeal by the Supreme Court. Issue 2 - Best Judgment Assessment and Recourse to Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994: The appellant did not provide information for the period 2010-11, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 72 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant requested a stay on the proceedings as similar matters were pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the matter was no longer res-integra as previous decisions were in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the previous decisions and the dismissal of the Department's appeal by the Supreme Court. Separate Judgment by Judges: The judgment was delivered by HON'BLE Ms. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order confirming the demand and penalties, based on the previous decisions in favor of the appellant and the dismissal of the Department's appeal by the Supreme Court.
|
