ARC SERVICES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

(2.) The present petition challenges the impugned order dtd. 9/8/2021 passed ex-parte by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (hereinafter as 'APFC') under Sec. 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter "Act") imposing a penalty of Rs.3,99,909.00 on the Petitioner Firm.

(3.) The submission of Mr. L.B. Rai, ld. Counsel for Petitioner, is that the Petitioner was continuously appearing before the Authority. He submits that initially, the summons were received on 8/3/2021 for hearing under Sec. 7Q of the Act, for belated remittance made during the period 14/9/2014 to 29/2/2020. Vide the said summons, the Petitioner was asked to appear before the Authority on 19/3/2021. On 19/3/2021, the Petitioner appeared before the Authority, and the case was adjourned to 30/3/2021. On 30/3/2021 and on 5/4/2021, the Petitioner had appeared before the Authority. On 9/4/2021, the matter was adjourned to 22/4/2021. However, on 22/4/2021, the Petitioner could not appear due to the outbreak of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic by then. However, the Petitioner had enquired and found out that the next date was fixed as 4/5/2021. On 4/5/2021, the Petitioner is stated to have logged in through the video-conferencing link at the specified time but no one appeared on behalf of the Authority. Vide e-mail dtd. 10/5/2021, the Petitioner wrote to the Authority but no response was received. Further proceedings were held through video-conferencing on various dates, i.e., 7/7/2021, 19/7/2021 and 26/7/2021, wherein the Petitioner duly appeared before the Authority. On 26/7/2021, the matter was adjourned to 9/8/2021. However, on 11/8/2021, the Petitioner was sent the impugned order dtd. 9/8/2021.