M/S. FENWICK AND RAVI, BANGALORE Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against a notice issued vide Annexun - C, pursuant to an order passed by respondent No.1 under Sec. 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), demanding payment of interest amount of Rs. 5,58,561.00 on the provident fund dues for the period from Apr 1996 to Nov., 2013 and for issue of direction to the respondents to refund Rs. 2,00,000 -remitted by the petitioner on 28.03.2014, vide the challan as at Annexure-E.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, an establishment covered under the Act. was required to remit provident fund contributions under Sec. 6 of the Act read with para graph 29 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. Alleging that the petitioner failed to pay the contributions within the stipulated period i.e., for the period from April, 1996 to Nov., 2013, a show-cause notice dated 24.12.2013 vide Annexure - A was issued. In response to the said notice, a representative of the petitioner having appeared on 21.02.2014 before respondent No.l and admitted the delay in remittance of the provident fund contributions and requested instalment facility to clear the dues by stating that the establishment was facing financial difficulties, the 1st respondent by an order dated 28.02.2014 vide Annexure - B held that the petitioner is liable for payment of damages from April, 1996 to Nov., 2013, totalling to Rs. 12,42,115.00. The amount having not been remitted, a demand letter vide Annexure - C, under Sec. 7Q of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder was served on the petitioner to remit the interest. The 2nd respondent having served the notice of demand vide Annexure - D, Rs. 2,00.000.00 was remitted by the petitioner on 28.03.2014 vide Annexure - E.

(3.) Sri. V. Narasimha Holla, learned advocate, firstly contended that Annexure - C is irrational. Secondly, there being delay of about 16 years commencing from April 1996, the 1st respondent could not have levied the interest on account of the delay in remitting of the contributions. He submitted that the petitioner had no intention of avoiding remittance of the contributions and that the delay occurred on account of the financial constraints faced due to 11 on payment/delayed payment of the money for the products supplied to the Government and other public sector undertakings. Lastly, that Rs. 2,00,000.00 was remitted on 28.03.2014 on account of the persistent threats and hence, the respondents be directed to refund the amount and absolve the petitioner of the liability 10 pay interest amount demanded vide Annexure - C.