Appellant not liable for service tax on statutory EPF functions under EPF MP Act 1952

CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on statutory functions under EPF MP Act. The tribunal held that appellant was not liable to pay service tax on statutory activities performed under EPF MP Act, 1952, as these were not taxable services. The relationship between employers and appellant constituted discharge of statutory and compulsory obligations enforceable by law, not commercial service provision. Following previous favorable decisions for identical issues in earlier periods, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

---

---

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.

---