REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Kalika Fashions Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH V. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. [REFERRED TO]
K S RASHID AND SON VS. INCOME TAX INVESTIGATION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAN SINGH VS. ELECTION TRIBUNI KOTAH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. T R VARNA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED TO]
K S VENKATARAMAN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
FIRST INCOME TAX OFFICER SALEM VS. SHORT BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. INDIAN HUME PIPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
P KANNADASAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. DOSU AARDESHIR BHIWANDIWALA [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
SIDDESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. IKBAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act as well as the damages imposed under Section 14B of the EPF Act are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner states that the Order under Section 14B was issued without providing any opportunity to the writ petitioner. The petitioner was not even heard and therefore, the order is in violation of the provisions of the Act itself. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and was established in the year 2009 and is engaged in stitching garments based on the orders obtained from various garment export houses. The petitioner states that they were paying the contributions and while adjudicating the issues for imposing damages, the respondents have not provided any opportunity to the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner states that an enquiry was conducted in an unfair manner and is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Click here to view full judgment.

KALIKA FASHIONS Vs. COMMISSIONER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address