Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The learned EPFAT having arrived at this conclusion rendered an opinion that the interest of justice would be met by imposing 60% of the assessed damages on the establishment, along with the entire assessed interest.

10. Being aggrieved by the order of reduction in amount of damages to 60%, passed by the learned EPFAT, the assessing officer carried the same to this Court by way of the present proceedings.

6. The submission made through the present petition is to the effect that the EPFAT had grossly erred in reducing the amount of damages to 60% of the assessed damages imposed upon the respondent. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Supreme Court in RPFC vs. Shibu Metal Works, 1964-65 (27) FJR 491 to contend that in construing the material provisions of the Act, if two views were reasonably possible , the Courts' should prefer the view which helps the achievement and furtherance of the object and to similar effect reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the High Court of Bombay in State vs. Girdhari lal Bajaj, 1962 II LLJ (Bom. DB), to contend that when there was a doubt in any meaning of words they ought to be understood in a manner in which it best harmonizes the subject of the enactment and the object which the legislature had in view. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the Supreme Court in Chairman, SEBI vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Anr. on order dated 23.08.2006 passed in CA Nos. 9523-24/2003 to contend that unless the language of the statute indicated the need to establish the presence of mens rea, it was wholly unnecessary to ascertain whether such a violation was intentional or not. It was thus submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the delay in the remittance of dues under the EPF & MP Act and its Scheme stood established, enquiry under Section 14-B and 7Q had essentially to follow, and mens rea was not a pre condition for imposition of penalty for contravention of the provisions of a civil nature. Reliance in relation thereto was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the High Court of Bombay in SEBI vs. Cabot International Capita Corporation (2005) 123 Comp. Cases 841 (Bom.) to similar effect. Inter alia, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a defaulter must be prevented from retaining the known profits of its crime and the principle of Jurisprudence- Commodum Ex Injuria Sua Non Habere Debet ought to have been implemented so that no person can take advantage of his own wrong and no one derives advantage from one's own injurious behavior and no one ought to benefit from one's own tort. Inter alia, it was submitted through the petition that the EPFAT had also failed to appreciate that in terms of Section 7O of the EPF and MP Act, no appeal of the employer could be entertained by the Tribunal unless the employer establishment had deposited with it 75% of the amount due from it as determined under Section 7A of the Act and reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the verdict of the High Court of Kerala in Muthoot Pappachan C.& M Services V. EPFO 2009 LLR 298 (KER HC) to the effect that deposit of 75% of the amount due was a pre condition under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 for an appeal to be maintained which in the instant case had not been complied with by the establishment. Inter alia, it was stated vide grounds D and E of the petition to the effect:

"1. Whether the Hon'ble EPFAT was correct in imposing just 60% of the assessed damages on the Respondents herein vide its order dated 04.11.2016 and thereby contravening the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund Act.

2. Whether the Hon'ble EPFAT was correct in contravening the provisions of the EPF Act, which provides for levying of damages and interest thereon."

12. A conjoint reading of the above extracted paragraphs clearly and unequivocally leads to the inescapable conclusion that the learned Single Judge concurred with the findings arrived at by EPFAT, to the effect that the assessing officer had failed to consider, that the establishment had duly deposited the cheque in the designated bank for remittance of the amount due, but owing to the same being done belatedly, the dues could not be deposited in the account of the assessing officer in time; and the establishment could, therefore, not be said to have been in default, owing to circumstances, which were beyond their control and unintentional. Further, it was observed that the assessing officer had passed the original order, not on the basis of the earlier table that continued to govern the subject assessment, in accordance with law, and was, therefore, disentitled from recovering the entire amount for failure of the establishment to carry out their obligation within the declared time and consequently, the same is untenable and could not be sustained. It is in this view of the matter, that the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion that keeping in mind the circumstances of the case, both antecedent and attendant, the interest of justice were met by imposing 60% of the assessed damages on the establishment along with the entire assessed interest, as directed by the EPFAT.