Allowed

M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I

Bombay HC25 Feb 2020WP/809/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner erred in passing orders for periods anterior to the Show Cause Notice issued under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petition challenging such orders was allowed, and the orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders passed under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act were quashed and set aside. Respondent to issue fresh show cause notice.

M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

wp 809-2020.doc

¶2

sat

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 809 OF 2020

¶5

M/s.Afcons Infrastructure Ltd.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Mumbai...Respondent

¶9

Mr.Aumkar V. Joshi for Petitioner.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

¶11

DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2020

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

2This writ petition challenges two orders passed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner under Sections 14B and 7Q of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('Act').
It is apparent from the record of the case that the inquiry, in which the
impugned orders came to be passed, was initiated in pursuance of a Show
Cause Notice dated 5 July 2016. This show cause notice was for hearing
under Section 14B and Section 7Q for belated remittances made during the
period from 1 August 2012 to 31 March 2015. The impugned orders, on
the other hand, are passed in respect of the period from March 2012 to
July 2012. The impugned orders show damages as ordered under Section
14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Act for failure to remit Provident
Fund contributions for the period between March 2012 and July 2012 and
also between March 2009 and February 2011, both of which are anterior to
the period mentioned in the show cause notice. This is obviously

1 / 2

wp 809-2020.doc

sat

impermissible. The impugned orders, accordingly, cannot be sustained and
deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶19

3The impugned orders passed by the Provident Fund
Commissioner on 31 December 2019 under Sections 14B and 7Q of the Act
are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The Provident Fund Organisation
shall be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice for the respective
periods, namely, March 2009 to February 2011 and March 2012 to July
2012, and hold an inquiry in pursuance of any such notice and pass
appropriate orders.

¶20

4 The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

 (S.C. GUPTE, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed Sanskruti by Sanskruti A.Thakur A. Thakur Date: 2020.02.27 02:58:54 +0530

¶23

2 / 2

M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Jayantilal Shah and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Sahadu Bhikaji Sherkar and Anr. Vs Deputy / Assistant Charity Commissioner Charity Commissioners Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia Vs Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia and 6 Ors.

Anup Lalwani and 2 Ors. Vs Emgee Greens Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmchari Mahasangh Vs M/S. Repro India Ltd. and Ors.

M/S. Shree Stampings, through Partners Vs Mr. Ramesh Gangaram Kamble