LAWS(KER)-2022-11-414

BPL INDIA LTD Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Decided On November 10, 2022
Bpl India Ltd Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 10th day of November, 2022 Orders, dtd. 2/12/2019, Ext.P6 and 28/10/2021 Ext.P9 of the Assessing Authority and the Appellate Authority, assessing the damages and reduction thereof to the extent of 70% under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act for short) are under challenge on behalf of the Petitioner Company, covered under the aforesaid Act. On account of the non payment of the contributions to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 and odd amount, despite having paid salaries to the Employees, proceedings under Sec. 7-A of the Act were initiated against the Petitioner. In respect of the delayed contributions statue provides the consequential action under Sec. 7-Q & 14-B of the Act. The present Writ Petition confines only to the damages assessed under Sec. 14- B of the Act. A notice was received by the Petitioner calling upon by the Assessing authority to pay the damages, which was duly replied on 27/11/2019, wherein it was categorically stated that the Company had suffered loss of almost 10 Crores for the Financial Year 2012-2013. Dissatisfied by the reply, the Assessing Authority assessed the damages to be Rs.36,80,520..00 In Appeal the Appellate Authority reduced it to 70% confining to Rs.25,76,364..00

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that what weighed with the Appellate Authority in reducing the amount was the balance sheet of the 2010-2011 & 2011-2012. The aforementioned balance sheet reflected increase in the capital on account of sale of immovable assets. But, those balance-sheets could not have been read in isolation as the subsequent balance-sheet of 2012-2013 reflected loss of Rs.10.00 Crores.

(3.) In support of the contention relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., 2013 (3) KLT 790, wherein it has been held that the authority under Sec. 14-B is not denuded from examining the aspects or prevented to re-assess the damages as provided in the statute.