The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely filing of review applications and appeals, and the consequences of concealing relevant information from the authorities.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad (‘Commissioner’, in short) has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated March 05, 2013 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, in short) in A.T.A. No. 581 (16) 2005 which is an appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated April 26, 2005 passed by the Commissioner under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (‘Act’ in short), whereby the Tribunal has found the appeal filed by the respondent within limitation as it was filed after 58 days of the passing of the impugned order dated April 26, 2005, and thereby rejected the objection of the petitioner by imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The brief facts are, proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act were initiated against the respondent, whereby different orders were passed for different periods. The last order was dated May 31, 2001. The total demand including under Section 14B was for Rs.5.71 crores. The details of the demand are as under:

Sr. No.

Period

Amount Assessed u/s

Date of order

7A

14B

1

08/94 to 03/96

1,83,66,785

10.12.96

2

06/96 to 11/97

4,62,018

12.07.99

3

12/97 to 04/98

40,54,282

12.03.99

4

05/98 to 09/98

34,56,065

31.05.99

5

10/98 to 01/99

32,17,870

07.04.2000

6

02/99 to 10/99

83,59,042

23.06.2000

7

11/99 to 06/2000

88,27,170

28.07.2000

8

11/2000 to 03/2001

34,53,956

31.05.2001

9

10/77 to 02/83

8,53,613

17.09.85

10

06/83 to 04/84

46,968

13.03.87

11

01/84 to 88-89

19,88,251

09.10.90

Total

5,42,97,188

28,88,832

Grand Total

5,71,86,020

3. The respondent filed a review application under Section 7-B of the Act on March 13, 2005. The review application was dismissed by the petitioner vide its communication dated March 31, 2005. The respondent was in receipt of the said communication i.e. March 31, 2005 on April 05, 2005. A perusal of the said communication would reveal that the Competent Authority had found the review, inter alia, being not fit to be considered as in terms of the provisions contained in Para 79A of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with Section 7-B of the Act, the same was not filed within a period of 45 days of the orders under Section 7-A of the Act.

4. It is noted that the respondent had filed a Company Application No. 275/2005 in C.P. No. 18/2001, inter alia, seeking a direction against the Commissioner (RPFC) to review/re-assess the earlier ex parte/ad-hoc assessment order in view of the returns filed by the company. Suffice would it be to say that the Company Court in its order dated February 23, 2005, on the said application, had observed that if the power to review exists, the respondent can always move an application seeking review of the earlier ex parte order passed by the Commissioner and no directions are needed by the Court. The respondent withdrew the said application with liberty to file an appropriate review petition. It may also be relevant to state here, the said application was dismissed with a further observation by the Company Court that as and when such an application is filed, the Commissioner (RPFC) shall decide the same in accordance with law.

5. It is under these circumstances, a review application was preferred, a reference of which above, is made on March 13, 2005 was filed.

6. That on March 24, 2005, the respondent filed a Writ Petition numbered as 5389-5392/2005 with a plea that despite the review application filed by the respondent is pending consideration, the department is proceeding with recovery. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 04th April, 2005, the following order was passed: “Counsel for the petitioner seeks time for taking instructions.

It is stated that the review petition u/S 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is pending before respondent No. 1 for adjudication. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No. 1 on 20th April 2005 along with all the relevant records and the respondent No. 1 shall dispose of the review petition by a reasoned order after affording a