Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Chhotanagpur Khadi Gramodyog ... vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 17 November, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1665 of 2021
-----
M/s. Chhotanagpur Khadi Gramodyog Sansthan, Sarvoday Aashram, Tiril, Ranchi. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Employees' Provident Fund Organization, through its Regional Commissioner, Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
2. The Assistant Provident Commissioner (Compliance), Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
3. The Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
4. The State Director, State Office, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Ministry of Micro, Medium Enterprises, Govt. of India, 2nd Floor, Shanti Bhawan, Albert Ekka Chowk, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the EPFO : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, Advocate For Res. No.4 : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate
-----
Order No.06 Date: 17.11.2022 In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that limited grievance of the petitioner as raised in the present writ petition is that an amount of Rs.12,11,709/- paid by the petitioner in favour of Employees' Provident Organization, Regional Office, Ranchi through demand drafts on different dates between 26th July, 2012 and 5th July, 2019 has not been adjusted against its dues towards assessments made under sections 7A & 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1952') for the period from April, 2006 to October, 2009 and November, 2009 to May, 2014 as well as towards assessment made under Sections 14B and 7Q of the said Act for the period from November, 2009 to September, 2016. Due to the said inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has not been able to discharge his statutory liability by making payment of the balance assessed amount under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1952.
Learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO submits that the petitioner was found liable to make payment of Rs.2,18,191/- (principal amount Rs.1,79,101/- under Section 7A and interest amount Rs.39,090/- under Section 7Q) for the period from April, 2006 to -2- October, 2009. The petitioner was also found liable to make payment of Rs.28,40,492/- (Rs.20,15,650/- as EPF and allied dues under Section 7A and Rs.8,24,842/- as interest under Section 7Q) for the period from November, 2009 to May, 2014. Further the petitioner was found liable to make payment of Rs.5,64,458/- (Rs.3,41,154/- under section 14B and Rs.2,23,304/- under section 7Q) for the period from November, 2009 to September, 2016. Learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, however, refers to paragraph no.33 of the counter affidavit and submits that subsequent to the aforesaid assessments, the records were verified and it was found that the petitioner had also deposited Rs.7,67,963/-. The petitioner was further found to have deposited Rs.31,000/- against its statutory liability for which a corrigendum letter dated 30th May, 2021 was also issued to it.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has raised the dispute in the present writ petition that the respondent-EPFO has not taken note of the deposits made by it between the period 26th July, 2012 to 5th July, 2019, as would be evident from the letter of the petitioner dated 3rd February, 2019 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) addressed to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Regional Office, Ranchi. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not specifically denied the said factual assertion made by the petitioner in the writ petition, rather they have only stated that on verification of record an amount of Rs.7,67,963/- was found to have been paid by the petitioner towards its statutory liability and subsequently it was further found that the petitioner had deposited Rs.31,000/-.
Hence, the petitioner is given liberty to make a fresh representation before the respondent no.2 giving details of the payments made by it towards statutory liability as per the aforesaid assessments. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.2 shall verify the record and if on such verification any further amount is found to have been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted against the aforesaid statutory liability. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent no.2 within six weeks from the date of filing of the representation.
-3-It goes without saying that after the said adjustment (if any), the petitioner shall be liable to discharge rest of the liability towards the aforesaid assessments forthwith.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty, observation and direction.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/