RAJ KUMAR GUPTA Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core issue, which has been raised by the petitioner in the present writ application, is whether the Assessing Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal have passed the respective orders within the ambit of the law or in breach of certain pronouncements made even by the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue. Stand of the petitioner is that the Assessing Authority is not only mixed up about the name of the establishment while liability was sought to be fastened upon the petitioner but was also done without actually verifying the correct position on the ground merely because of similarity of the names of establishments. It is also urged that even procedure laid down under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has not been followed.

(2.) Years ago, in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner, 1990 1 SCC 68, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the mechanism, which was required to be followed while making assessment or determination under Section 7A of the Act. The Court's observation especially in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9, lays down the core issue, which is required in determination of the liability of an establishment. If there is failure to adhere to any aspect of what the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down, which are any way in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Obviously any assessment or determination contrary to the same would be required to be interfered with.

(3.) This Court had an occasion to deal with a similar matter which was the case of M/s. Roxy Cinema vs. the State of Bihar & Anr., 2013 2 PLJR 931, disposed of on 20th of July, 2012. The ambit and the parameters under which such assessment is required to be made has also been discussed by the Court and the Court has thus observed:--