Delhi High Court - Orders
Avery Dennison India Pvt. Ltd vs Enforcement Officer, Epfo And Ors on 28 February, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2277/2020 & CM APPL. 7938/2020
AVERY DENNISON INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajit Yadav and Mr. Vineet
Kumar, Advs.
versus
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EPFO AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satpal Singh, Adv. for EPFO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 28.02.2020 CM APPL. 7939/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 2277/2020 & CM APPL. 7938/2020 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, levying the damages under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), on the basis of an Inspection Report made by the Enforcement Officer of the EPFO.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said officer does not have the jurisdiction to carry out the same. He further submits that powers of the Inspectors are defined under section 13 of the Act. In any case, the foundation of three orders on ex-parte report, without hearing the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:06.03.2020 17:30:51 petitioner, is ex facie erroneous. He submits that the amounts imposed upon the petitioner have already been deposited i.e. roughly Rs. 52 lacs and the corresponding interest accrued thereon in the range of Rs. 31 lacs.
Issue notice.
The learned counsel named above, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of the EPFO.
A copy of the petition be supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents.
Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed before the next date.
Till the next date of hearing, there shall be no disbursement of the aforesaid amount.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the best remedy in this regard is writ jurisdiction. He refers to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 1974 SCC OnLine Del 177 which held inter alia:
"...In short, when the conscience of the Court is touched, the court is able to depart from the rule and entertain a writ petition in view of the particular circumstances of the case...."
He also refers to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. UOI & Others (1998) 2 SCC 242.
In the present case, while a show cause notice was issued, nevertheless, it was for the Commissioner to have questioned the report which itself was one sided i.e. there was no occasion for the petitioner to assist the Inspector in the formation of the report. Therefore, ex facie the very basis of the show cause notice could well be considered erroneous.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:06.03.2020 17:30:51The effects of an order passed in lack of jurisdiction or which is ex- facie erroneous would need to be put in abeyance through efficacious remedy.
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that till the next date of hearing, no precipitate action shall be taken against the petitioner in terms of the impugned order.
List on 19.03.2020.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 28, 2020 RW Signature Not Verified Digitally signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:06.03.2020 17:30:51