Writ petition challenging ex-parte assessment orders and automatic interest under EPF Act set aside due to violation of natural justice as petitioner was prevented from pressing objections, despite filing them.
Orders under Sections 14B and 7Q set aside; petition remanded to respondent for fresh hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 37388 of 2015 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
LT.COL. (RTD) GEORGE KURUVILA PROPRIETOR, BPCL COCO RETAIL OUTLET, CHITRAPUZHA 682 302, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685/A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B NO. 1895, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.
R1 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION R BY SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06- 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 37388 of 2015 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.14.
EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KR/KCH/0029284/000/ENF 503/DAMATES/3117 DATED 5.2.15 AND DATED 4.6.15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 16.6.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/KCH/29284/DAMAGES CELL/EXPARTE/2015 DATED 16.10.15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/KCH/29284/DAMAGES CELL/7Q/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.37388 of 2015 - W
====================== Dated this the 09th day of June, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P4 and P5 orders of assessment passed by the respondent organisation under
Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'EPF & MP Act'). The petitioner was carrying on a petrol bunk from 01.09.2010 to 31.08.2016 and the period for which assessment has been made is from September 2010 to February 2012. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was not heard in the matter and the orders passed are in total violation of principles of natural justice.
2
W.P.(C) No.37388 of 2015 - W
appeal provided therein. With respect to Section 14B, it is submitted that ex-parte assessment was made, only since the petitioner did not turn up for hearing. The said facts have not been stated in the reply, which rather attempts to substantiate the assessment made by Exts.P4 and P5. The merits of the assessment would not be an issue, which could be agitated before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; especially when alternative remedies are available.
whether the petitioner was heard before orders were passed. A look at Ext.P4, being the order passed under Section 14B, reveals that the Assessing Officer has recorded that none appeared for hearing on 16.16.2015, nor was any reply or representation brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. This would stand contrary to the definite averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner
3
W.P.(C) No.37388 of 2015 - W
was present in the office of the respondent organisation on 16.06.2015 and he was not permitted to enter the chambers of the Assessing Officer and was permitted to file an objection, which has been acknowledged. Ext.P3 is the objection dated 16.06.2015, which is acknowledged by the office of the respondent organisation and the seal on the acknowledgment is 16.06.2015, ie., the date of hearing. This definitely lends credence to the contention of the petitioner that he was present in the office of the Assessing Officer on the particular day and had also filed his objections. The reply is silent about the specific averments made in the writ petition supported by Ext.P3 document.
and it is made clear that this Court has only interfered with the order on the technical ground of violation of principles of natural justice and has not looked into the merits of the assessment
4
W.P.(C) No.37388 of 2015 - W
made, which the Assessing Officer would be entitled to look at,
afresh after hearing the petitioner.
5
W.P.(C) No.37388 of 2015 - W
Ext.P5 also has to be set aside, and I do so, again with the very
same observations as herein above made.
settled within a period of one month from the date of hearing.
The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.
Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/09/06/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was heard before the ex-parte assessment orders under Section 14B were passed.
Whether the writ court should interfere with the automatic interest order under Section 7Q due to respondent's delay without hearing the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶32
2 provisions across 1 enactments
LT.COL. (RTD) GEORGE KURUVILA
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
