Allowed

Central Board of Trustees, Epf v. M/S Gowri Hotels a Partnership Firm

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/14037/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The EPF organization challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order allowing an appeal for assessment year 2007-09, which had held the respondent-establishment closed with fewer than 20 employees. Finding the Tribunal's closure finding unsupported and the assessment lacking data on employees, the High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh assessment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; impugned Tribunal order in ATA No.771(6)2011 set aside and matter remitted to Regional PF Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14037 OF 2015 (L-PF)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF THROUGH REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE, S(1) F, 1^ST STAGE, PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560 058.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SANDHYA JAMADAGNI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S. GOWRI HOTELS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. S. ANAND KUMAR S/O SEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.51, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.30.10.2014 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN A.T.A. NO.771(06)2011 & 738(6)2011 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶25

This petition is filed by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA.No.771(6)2011. It is to be noticed that the impugned order refers to two different appeals namely ATA No.771(6)2011 and 738(6)2011. The appeal No.771(6)2011 is relating to the assessment year 2007-09. Appeal No. 738(6)2011 refers to assessment year 2005-07.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the respondent was registered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act, 1952') and when the assessment was conducted for the year 2005-07 and 2007-09, it is noticed that the respondent has not made provident fund contribution as required under the Act,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Thus, the order is passed directing the respondent to pay the amount determined in the said assessment.

¶31

It is to be noticed that there are two assessment orders for the aforementioned period and two appeals are filed by the respondent. Appeal ATA No.738(6)2011 filed in respect of assessment for the year 2005-07 is dismissed. And Appeal No.771(6) 2011 in respect of assessment for the year 2007-09 is allowed.

¶32

The respondent has not assailed the order dismissing the appeal in respect of assessment Year 2005-07 and the same is accepted by the respondent. Though the prayer would say that the petitioner has assailed both orders, in substance, the petition is filed only in respect of the order for assessment Year 2007-09.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Appellate Tribunal has held that the number of employees were less than 20 and as such, the respondent is entitled to the benefit and is not required to pay contribution under the Act, 1952. Referring to Section 1(5) of the Act, 1952, it is urged that once the respondent- establishment is registered under the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Act, 1952, notwithstanding the fact that number of employees would come down below 20, the respondent-establishment is bound to pay contribution as required under the Act, 1952.

¶38

It is also urged that the respondent has not produced any records to show that establishment is closed, which is the contention raised for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of additional documents.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the impugned order is justified given the fact that the petitioner has not furnished the details of the employees working in the respondent at a given point of time between 2007-09. It is his further submission that the respondent-establishment was closed in December, 2007 and as such there is no obligation to pay any contribution under the Act, 1952, as no workers were employed after December, 2007.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation vs. Regional Provident

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Fund Commissioner¹ . Referring to the said judgment, it is urged that the petitioner was required to establish the number of employees/beneficiaries under the respondent and default in the contribution.

¶45

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records including the impugned order.

¶46

The impugned order would indicate that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the establishment of the respondent is closed. However, it is not indicated that when the establishment is closed and it has also not indicated that on what basis Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the establishment is closed. To that extent, the impugned order is unsustainable insofar as finding relating to the closure of respondent-establishment.

¶47

Apart from that, the petitioner has also not indicated as to who were the employees working with the respondent at a given point of time. That being the position, the assessment appears to be not supported by sufficient data.

¶48

1 (2008) 5 SCC 756

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order and the assessment order has to be set aside and the matter has to be considered afresh by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall ascertain the necessary facts relating to the number of employees working at a given point of time i.e., between 2007-09 and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders. The respondent shall also furnish necessary data and records for the fair assessment of the contribution, if any payable by the respondent.

¶53

Hence, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part ;

¶56

(ii) Impugned order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA.No.771(6)2011 is set aside;

¶57

(iii) The matter is remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders by

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:541 WP No. 14037 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

taking into consideration aforementioned observations;

¶62

(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter;

¶63

(v) In case the respondent has closed the establishment from December, 2007, it is for the respondent to produce the necessary documents relating to closure as required under law.

¶64

(vi) All contentions are kept open.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶67

SMJ

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Central Board of Trustees, Epf v. M/S Gowri Hotels a Partnership Firm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Board of Trustees, Epf v. M/S Gowri Hotels a Partnership Firm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Aswathnarayana Vs K P Vijaya

The Commissioner Vs the President

Sri Narayanappa Vs Sri Hanumanthappa

Smt Sakamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Principal Vs Manjunath

M/S Innovative Techonologies Vs Armugam