Telangana High Court
M/S. Sew Infrastructure Limited vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 22 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.10423 OF 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a writ, order or a direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 10/04/2024 bearing RRCNo.APHYD0016338000/14B/2024/501/T1/268/45 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional contrary to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and consequently set aside the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 10/04/2024 bearing RRC No APHYD0016338000/14B/ 2024/ 501/ T1/ 268/ 45 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3..."
2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in the business of Infrastructure development and registered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') vide registration No.AP/HYD/16338. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 issued summons under Section 14B of the Act alleging that the petitioner has paid delayed/belated payments of EPF contributions for a period from 21.04.2018 to 25.10.2023.
2
3. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that soon after receipt of the said summons, the petitioner establishment has submitted its explanation and without taking into consideration the said explanation, respondent No.1 passed orders under Section 7Q and Section 14B of the Act dated 18.03.2024. It is further submitted that against the order under Section 14B of the Act, a statutory appeal is provided under Section 7(i) of the Act and against the order passed under Section 7Q of the Act, no appeal provided and the aggrieved parties are entitled to question the same by filing writ petition before this Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before expiry of the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal, respondent No.1 issued impugned letter, dated 10.04.2024 directing respondent No.3 to recover the sum of Rs.4,69,73,937/- from the petitioner as Assessment Levy of Damages under Section 14B/Interest on account belated remittance of E.P.F., E.P.S., E.D.L.I. Dues and the said action on the part of respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and prayed this Court to set aside the same.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while submitting his arguments placed much reliance on 3 order in W.P.No.4973 of 2021 passed by the Bombay High Court. Para No.8 of the said order reads as follows:
"There is a purpose behind prescribing a limitation period to prefer an Appeal, by way of a statutory provision under any enactment. It is a period which is rightfully allocated to the aggrieved party to prefer an Appeal or such proceedings, as are statutorily permitted, before the superior forum. This period is at the disposal of the aggrieved party. Being a statutory period, neither can any authority curtail the said period, nor can an authority act to the prejudice of the aggrieved party during the Appeal period so as to frustrate the appeal. The Scheme under the PF Act enables the aggrieved party to approach the Appellate PF Tribunal by preferring an Appeal u/s.7I. Along with the Appeal, an application u/s.70 seeking reduction of the deposit of 75% of the assessed amount or waiver of the deposit can be sought. The Appeal u/s.7I is considered after the assessee deposits 75% of the amount. It is only u/s.70 that the amount could be reduced or waived. The action of the authority dealing with Section 7-A proceeding in recovering the entire amount assessed u/s.7A before the aggrieved party could file an Appeal, and that too, within the limitation period, is apparently an arbitrary action which cannot be countenanced."
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that questioning the said order passed by the Bombay High Court, the respondents therein filed an appeal vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.37088 of 2022 on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed on 23.01.2023, therefore, the law laid down by the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.4973 of 2021 is in force as on date. 4
6. Ms.Ande Vishala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that against the orders passed under Section 14B of the Act, an appeal would lie. It is further submitted that the impugned letter, dated 10.04.2024 is only an intimation informing respondent No.3 to recover the amounts from the petitioner against Assessment Levy of Damages and no action has been contemplated in pursuance of the impugned letter, dated 10.04.2024. It is further submitted that the respondents will take appropriate action in accordance with law after expiry of the prescribed period for filing an appeal against the order under Section 14B of the Act. However, learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that no appeal has been provided under Section 7Q of the Act.
8. In view of the said submissions, the impugned letter, dated 10.04.2024 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved with any of the orders passed by the respondents, he is at liberty to avail remedies as available in accordance with law.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
5
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 22.04.2024 Note:
Issue C.C in two days.
(B/o.) sus