Calcutta High Court
Bard Roy Infotech Private Limited vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 15 September, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 296 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BARD ROY INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 15th September, 2016.
Appearance:
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Adv.
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Srinanda Bose, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Changia, Adv.
For the petitioner.
Mr. Mihir Kundu, Adv.
For Provident Fund Authority.
The Court :- The petitioner has assailed an order dated March 17,
2016 passed by the respondent no.1 imposing a quantum on account of interest
on the petitioner no. 1.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and has submitted that the quantum of liability is yet to be adjudicated as there is an appeal pending. Since the quantum of liability is yet to be adjudicated, the question of paying interest does not arise. He has referred to an interim order dated April 5, 2016 passed in the writ petition and has submitted that the 2 petitioner has already furnished a cash security of Rs.12 lakhs with the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court. He has submitted that since the amount claimed in the impugned notice on account of interest comes to only Rs.12,42,647/- appropriate order should be passed allowing the petitioner to deposit such amount with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Park Street and upon such deposit being made by permitting the petitioner no.1 to withdraw the sum of Rs.12 lakhs. He has also submitted that the Authority should be directed to keep the amount so deposited in a separate account bearing interest. Appropriate direction should be issued for the purpose of adjusting the amount so deposited against the claim of the authorities, if any, in respect of the petitioner.
Learned Advocate for the provident fund authorities has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to deposit the amount claimed in the pending notice. He has also submitted that the appropriate direction should be issued for the purpose of adjusting the amount deposited with the amount determined in accordance with the order passed in the appeal, if any.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and materials made available on record.
The petitioner has challenged an order by which the Provident Fund Authorities have imposed a liability on account of principal and also interest. The petitioner is aggrieved by both of such quantifications. So far as the principal amount is concerned, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 3 Appellate Forum. The quantum of interest imposed is under challenge in the present writ petition.
The interim order passed on April 5, 2016 in presence of the parties required the petitioner to furnish a cash security of Rs.12 lakhs with the Registrar, Original Side. According to the petitioner, it has complied with the interim order.
As rightly pointed out on behalf of the parties, the interest component will depend upon the quantification of the principal. The issue of quantification of the principal is pending before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, till such time the principal amount is adjudicated upon, interest cannot be claimed. However, Section 7Q of the Act of 1952 contemplates imposition of interest on account of default. Consequently the authorities have demanded a sum of Rs.12,42,647/-.
In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.13 lakhs with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Park Street. The petitioner will do so within a fortnight from date. The Provident Fund Authorities upon receipt of such sum from the petitioner will invest the same in a short term fixed deposit bearing interest with any nationalized bank of their choice. They will keep the money along with the interest accrued thereon separately. This amount along with the interest accrued thereon will abide by the result of the pending appeal. On the disposal of such appeal, in the event any liability is found against the petitioner, the Regional Provident Fund Authorities will be at liberty to encash the fixed 4 deposit, and if required, prematurely, and adjust the principal as well as the interest component of the fixed deposit in protanto satisfaction of its claim. In the event of any surplus, the Provident Fund Authorities will refund the same to the petitioner. In the event of deficit, the authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for realization of the same.
Upon the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.13 lakhs with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Park Street, the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.12 lakhs furnished to the Registrar, Original Side. The Registrar, Original Side, is at liberty to encash the fixed deposit, if any, in respect of the sum so deposited by the petitioner prematurely, if required and to make over the proceeds thereof in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, WP No. 296 of 2016 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.