Gujarat High Court
Swaminarayan Vijay Carry vs Employees Provident Fund on 28 April, 2016
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/6790/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6790 of 2016
==========================================================
SWAMINARAYAN VIJAY CARRY
TRADE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION ....Respondent
==========================================================
Appearance:
MRS YOGINI V PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 28/04/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Challenge in this petition is made by the Establishment to the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot dated 05.01.2016 under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, raising demand of Rs.93,07,084/-.
2. At the outset it is noted that this Court is conscious of the fact that the impugned order is appellable before the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, however learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there are glaring irregularities, in procedure so also in substance.
3. It is a case of the petitioner that the impugned order is no different than the arm-twisting tactic by the Authorities since Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Apr 29 03:32:20 IST 2016 C/SCA/6790/2016 ORDER the petitioner had earlier approached this Court complaining that though the inquiry in question is for the year from 2002 to 2004, for more than a decade the same is kept pending. Reference in this regard is made to the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.9951 of 2014, order dated 24.09.2015. It is contended and prima facie, there is material in support of the contentions that, (i) the impugned order is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, since the report dated 01.01.2016 is considered without giving opportunity to the petitioner in that regard, (ii) the report of the Enforcement Officer, who had carried out the inspection before about a decade was reluctantly put to cross-examination that too after his retirement, (iii) subsequently other Officer also carried out the inspection and the report thereof is contrary to the material on record, since it is asserted by the Department that the list of exempted employees is not supplied by the Establishment, however it is pointed out that such list was already given. The requirement before the Tribunal is that the 75% of the amount demanded is challenged, needs to be deposited first. This provision though need not be examined critically, itself is sufficient to successfully arm-twist the Establishment, which prima facie in the present case appears to have been done.
4. Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 16.06.2016. By way of ad-interim relief, it is ordered that, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the meantime.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) mhdave/3 Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Apr 29 03:32:20 IST 2016