Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand State Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 18 January, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.4188 of 2022
-----
Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its CEO, Namely, Dr. Manoj Kumar .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Bhagirathi Complex, near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
2. Regional Commissioner, EPFO, Bhagirathi Complex, near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
3. Recovery Officer, EPFO, Bhagirathi Complex, near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
-----
Order No.04 Date: 18.01.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the notice of demand as contained in letter bearing RRC no.JHRAN14735/0030704/04/04/2022/503/35/676/6218 dated 21 st April, 2022/5th May, 2022/6th May, 2022 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Recovery officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Ranchi- respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.13,93,912/- under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1952') and Rs.4,62,064/- under Section 7Q of the said Act (total Rs.18,55,976/-) within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice failing which the recovery shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8B to 8G of the Act, 1952.
The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since total numbers of regular employees working in Dumka Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (now merged with the petitioner) were only eight till April, 2005, it was covered under the provision of Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, 1952 during the said period and, thus, it was exempted from the rigor of the said Act till April, 2005 and hence imposition of damages and interest upon it since April, 2001 is illegal and arbitrary.
-2-Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the assessments made under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 on 8th February, 2022/16th February, 2022, but the petitioner has not stated in the writ petition that any appeal has been preferred by it at least against the order passed under Section 14B of the said Act. He further submits that a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has also been filed, annexing a copy of the order dated 22nd November, 2022/23rd November, 2022, whereby the orders earlier passed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 have been revised.
Be that as it may.
On perusal of the record, it appears that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi has assessed damages under Section 14B of the Act, 1952 and interest under Section 7Q of the said Act vide letter no.10451/33504 & 10452/33505, respectively, both dated 8th February, 2022/16th February, 2022 against the petitioner. Subsequently, the said assessments made under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 have been amended vide corrigendum dated 22 nd November, 2022/23rd November, 2022. It has not been stated in the writ petition as to whether any appeal has been preferred by the petitioner particularly against the order passed under Section 14B of the Act, 1952 in absence of which the assessment made by the competent authority attains finality.
Thus, this Court is of the considered view that direct challenge to the demand based upon the aforesaid assessments cannot be entertained under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/