UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In the present case, the issue has been raised that the order passed in proceeding under section 7Q and 14B is completely an erroneous, misplaced and misdirected order on the score of fact that the money has been deposited in the Bank notified by E.P.F.O. through the networking and if any time has been consumed in remittance of the money by the Bank to the E.P.F.O. office, liability cannot be attached to the petitioner Bank and the prayer has been made to quash the summons and deposit the assessed amount.

(3.) An interlocutory application, vide I.A. No. 3771 of 2018, has been filed whereby and whereunder the petitioner has challenged the final orders (Annexure - P/7 series) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. Vide Memo no. 316 dated 18.04.2018, he has assessed the amount of Rs. 66289 under section 14B and Rs.62641 under section 7Q. Vide Memo no.317 dated 18.04.2018, assessment has been made of Rs.43458 under the 14B and Rs.51172 under the 7Q and vide Memo no. 315 dated vide dated 18.04.2018 under the 14B Rs.6648 and under the 7Q Rs.15958 has been assessed. This assessment has been made on account of delay in depositing of employer contribution by the petitioner, but he has pointed out that the Bank has deposited the required amount through the networking to the Bank notified by the E.P.F.O. and, as such, if any delay has occurred on account of remittance of money by the notified Bank, liability cannot be imposed upon the petitioner Bank, this aspect has not been replied by the E.P.F.O. nor it has been denied the claim of the petitioner. It is a matter of surprise that when the petitioner has deposited the money through the networking on the due date to the Bank notified by the E.P.F.O., in such circumstance, there cannot be any delay from the part of the petitioner Bank. It is a dispute in between the notified Bank and the E.P.F.O. and if they want to take any action, they may take action against the notified Bank, not the petitioner Bank which has deposited the amount in time.