Karnataka High Court
M/S Avesthagen Limited vs The Regional Provident on 18 April, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
W. P. No.14571/2017 (L-PF)
BETWEEN
M/S AVESTHAGEN LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT BUILDING
AVESTHAGEN ONE
7/6 BRUTON ROAD
BANGALORE-560025
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
DR. VILLOO PATELL ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARIKRISHNA S.HOLLA-ADV)
AND
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER
SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.36, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
NH-K.R. PURAM
BANGALORE-560036. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD-ADV)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REVIEW PETITION
DATED:28.3.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 7B OF THE ACT [ANNEXURE-H] EXPEDITOUSLY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
The facts in a nut shell are that the respondent caused the show cause notice to the petitioner on the premise that there was a default in payment of provident fund contribution for the period July 2010 to September 2015 and proceedings were initiated under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 whereby a sum of Rs.1,91,09,480/- was demanded vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and on account of non- payment, the Enforcement Officer of the respondent department sought to attach the properties of the petitioner in order to recover the provident fund contributions in respect of the employees who are drawing salary of Rs.6,500/- and below. The petitioner submits that due to recession in the market, they suffered heavy losses and they were not in a position to pay salaries and hence they could not deduct and remit the PF 3 contributions. Thereafter the respondent caused another notice calling upon the petitioner to pay total sum of Rs.2,17,59,713/- for the period commencing from July 2010 to September, 2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 13.8.2013 remitted the matter to the respondent for fresh determination after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. That in the interregnum, the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- vide letter dated 23.7.2015 and that till date, they have deposited sums in excess of Rs.1 Crore 27 Lakhs and that the enquiry as ordered by this Court culminated in an order demanding the sum mentioned supra.
Aggrieved the petitioner preferred one more petition in W.P.No.51711/2016 impugning the order passed under Section 7A of the Act. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal in turn dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred one more petition before 4 this court in W.P.No.57732/2016. Subsequently the petitioner filed a memo praying leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for reconciliation by way of filing revision petition under Section 7B of the Act. This court has taken the memo on record and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. But on perusal of the order this court is unable to discern any liberty as such being reserved in favour of the petitioner though it was prayed for. Thereafter it is contended that the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 7B of the Act. During the pendency of the revision petition the present writ petition came to be filed seeking for a direction to respondent to expedite the consideration of the review petition dated 28.3.2017 preferred under the provisions of Section 7B of the Act and also to quash the demand by the respondent vide Annexure-J wherein the respondent have demanded interest on the belated remittance amounting to Rs.16,81,742/- which relates to the period between 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. It is now stated by the petitioner that pending disposal of this writ petition, 5 the respondent has already passed the order on the review petition thereby rendering the first prayer infructuous. As regards the second prayer, no ground is made out which warrants intereference at the hands of this Court.
The petition does not disclose any plea which even contradicts the payment or belated remittances. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the demand for interest on the belated payments.
The petitioner have now preferred I.A.2/2017 whereby it is prayed that he may be permitted to raise the additional grounds in respect of the order passed by the respondent on the petition preferred under Section 7B of the said order consists of an entirely different cause of action. The first relief sought for in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. In respect of the second relief, no legal grounds are canvassed. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is woefully devoid of merits and is accordingly, rejected. 6
In view of the rejection of the writ petition I.A.2/2017 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs