- (1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the petitioner firm was alloted code no. BR/16 by the respondent-EPF Organization. It is an Industrial Unit engaged in manufacturing and selling cement located at Khalari. It is stated by the petitioner that order dated 28.01.2004 has been passed by the respondent no.
(2.) IN exercise of power under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act for the period of 1/93 to 9/93 and an amount of Rs. 76,05,930.00 besides interest under Section 7Q of the Act was assessed. The petitioner requested by filing an application to review of the said order, but the said application was refused, which is impugned in the first writ petition. In the second writ petition, the petitioner came before this Court with a plea that during the pendency of the first writ petition, in which respondents were directed to file counter affidavit and further restrained from taking any coercive steps, letter dated 26.09.2008 has been passed. The contention of the petitioner is that he had made a request before Director (Recovery) for giving facility of installment in order to liquidate the outstanding dues subject to the terms and conditions, whereupon the Director (Recovery) has directed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues in 36 installments @ Rs. Six Lakhs per installment in respect of the entire demand. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner establishment is a sick unit under BIFR so it was represented on behalf of the petitioner before the CBT through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner for waiver of the damages imposed under Section 14B of the Act. 2. The respondents have appeared and contested the claim of the petitioner and justified the issuance of notice by way of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit in W. P. (C) No. 5614 of 2008. It is submitted that the demand of damages under Section 14B of the Act has been passed after due notice and hearing to the petitioner assessing a sum of Rs. 1,04,99,857.00.00 under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act, 1952 and further interest under Section 7Q shall continue to accrue from due date till the date of deposit. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the proceeding of this application, vehemently submitted that the petitioner has paid substantial amount of money and in support thereof the supplementary affidavit has been filed on 27.08.2012. In the said supplementary affidavit documents (Annexure-4) showing details of EPF amount, which has been paid by the petitioner against the entire dues i.e. Rs. 2,10,13,854.79.00 has been annexed. Since, the petitioner insisted that he has paid substantial amount of money against the demand raised and the respondents have not considered it properly before issuing the impugned demand by letter dated 28.08.2012, the petitioner was allowed to approach the Regional Office of Employment Provident Fund Organisation with all supporting documents for verification and the reconciliation of the accounts within stipulated period. It was indicated that parties would file their necessary affidavits after having conducted the exercised for reconciliation showing their respective stands.
(3.) PETITIONER has filed supplementary affidavit on 13.09.2012 in which it has been stated that during the course of the exercise, officials of the department were shown all the entries in Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.08.2012, which have been admitted except a sum of Rs. 13, 28,723.00 and Rs. 75,610.00. These two figures, according to the petitioner, the department is not ready to accept unless supported with its original documents and the petitioner intimated the department that the office premises is under seal. It is submitted in para-6 that an amount of Rs. 2,93,108.00 and Rs. 2,75,000.00 has been shown as deposit in the official record of the department. However, at para-9, it is stated that after two sessions of reconciliation a total sum of Rs. 1,99,02,629.79.00 has been admitted by the respondents as per their record.;