Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S D.A. Rubber Industries Ltd vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 7 December, 2016

                               WP-19934-2016
   (M/S D.A. RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD Vs THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                    EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION)


07-12-2016

Shri Rahul Diwakar, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri J.K. Pillai, counsel for the respondent.

Challenging imposition of liability under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and challenging the concurrent orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 7-I of the Act, this writ petitioner has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Primarily, there being a delay of about nine years in depositing the contribution, action has been taken as impugned in this writ petition and the reasons given for the delay was that the challan and document with regard to deposit of contribution was seized by the authorities exercising statutory powers under the “Sick Industrial Companies Act” (Sica) and proceedings were held before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and as the documents and challan were with the said authority, the petitioner wanted time to produce the documents without grant of time, the penal action has been taken. Shri Rahul Diwakar, learned counsel took us through the objections in this regard filed by the petitioner establishment before the provident authorities vide Annexure-P/7 and tried to indicate that this aspect of the matter was neither considered by the Competent Authority or by the Appellate Authority, and therefore, there is a patent illegality in the assessment order done and penalty imposed under Section 14-B of the Act.

Shri J.K. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the organization on advance notice points out that neither Annexure-P/7 was submitted before the Assessing Officer nor was such an objection raised at any point of time, he invites our attention to Annexure-P/9 dated 16.7.2011 passed by the Competent Authority to demonstrate that no such objection was raised either before the Assessing Officer nor before the Appellate Tribunal.

We have considered the submissions made and on going through the records particularly Annexure-P/9 dated 16.7.2015 and 6.8.2015 the orders passed under Section 14-B & 7-Q of the Act, we find that no such objection was raised and even in the memorandum of appeal before the Appellate Authority, which is available on record, no such objection with regard to inability of the petitioner to produce the challan or document of deposit of contribution in time or to prove deposit has been raised. That being the deposition, the respondent have imposed penalty in according to the Provision of Section 14-B after following the due process of law, we find no ground to interfere into the matter, the petition, therefore, stands dismissed. 

     (RAJENDRA MENON)                            (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
     ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE




pn