OM POLYTECHNIC Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions challenge the orders passed by the Assessing Authority under Sec. 14(B) of the Employees Provident Fund Act (pg 24) and also notice/order dtd. 2/2/2017 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (pg 27). Since all these petitions raise a common ground, the facts in WP 1928/18 only are referred to.

(2.) The facts leading to the present matters indicate that since the petitioner establishment had failed to pay in time the PF contribution for the period as enumerated in the order, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the damages as envisaged u/s 14 (B) of the EPF Act and interest u/s 7- Q of the said Act ought not be levied. As none appeared, the learned Assessing Authority by an order passed under Sec. 14(B) of the EPF Act has assessed the damages for the delay occasioned as indicated above and directed the petitioner to pay the same. The subsequent notice/order u/s 7-Q requires the interest to be paid upon the same. (pg 27)

(3.) Mr. Bhongade, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the proceedings were exparte a fresh notice ought to have been sent to the petitioner to afford an opportunity. It is further contended that there is no compliance of the provision of Para 32A of the EPF Scheme regarding the assessment of the damages and therefore the impugned orders, according to him, are liable to be quashed and set aside.