Gujarat High Court
Crystal vs Regional on 12 July, 2011
Author: R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8044/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8044 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8045 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8046 of 2011
=========================================================
CRYSTAL
FOUNDRY FLUXES PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 12/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Inadvertently, Special Civil Application No.8045 of 2011 is not notified on the Board. At the request of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the papers are called for from the Registry.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner moves draft amendment in Special Civil Application No.8045 of 2011. The same is allowed. Amendment shall be carried out during the course of the day.
2. In all these petitions what is challenged is the order passed by the EPF Tribunal dated 03.03.2011, order dated 18.12.2008 and 13.05.2009 passed by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner.
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Dipak R.Dave for the petitioners submitted that the authorities have clubbed three units and have given retrospective effect from the date of set up of all units. However, the authorities have assessed the liability with effect from 01.08.2007.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the authorities have failed to take into consideration the contentions which were raised before the authorities, which are narrated in order dated 18.12.2008 by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner. For ready perusal, those contentions are reproduced:-
"(1) They are proprietary firms run and managed/controlled by self employed single man and working with less means and weak financial sources.
(2) They have separate working, separate ownership/management control and separate bank accounts, separate PAN under Income Tax Act, Separate shop and establishment registrations, GST & CST.
(3) They have no concern with each other and they are not branch and part of each other.
(4) They have stated that business activity are also different.
(5) They individually employees less than 10 employees they have independent entity and business relation and therefore their units can not be clubbed.
(6) They have stated that it is not proper and practical to comply the provisions of the law individually and also alleged whether the organization is really trying to provide benefits to employees or intends to harass the company.
(7) They have stated further that without prejudice to the dispute they have no objection for voluntary coverage under section 1 (4) of the Act with effect from the date of order but not from retrospective effect date."
3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that if the Assistant P.F. Commissioner had taken into consideration the contentions then he could not have relied upon the report of the Enforcement Officer.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners could not convince this Court that the authorities have committed any error in relying upon the report of the Enforcement Officer, which was found reliable by the officer concerned. Learned Advocate for the petitioners could not convince this Court that the appellate Tribunal has committed any error in dismissing the appeals.
5. Having found no substance in the petitions, the same are dismissed.
(Ravi R.Tripathi, J.) *Shitole Top