The court upheld the authority's decision-making process and granted the petitioner an opportunity to represent their case, emphasizing compliance with applicable law.

JUDGMENT :

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notice dated 30.12.2013, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for payment of Rs.35,22,822/- (Rupees thirty five lakh twenty two thousand eight hundred twenty two) as damages under Section 14B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’) and Rs.22,66,574/- (Rupees twenty two lakh sixty six thousand five hundred seventy four) under Section 7Q of the said Act, as interest. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 22.01.2014, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, in the said proceedings.

(2) The record reveals that the petitioner herein is a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. The provident fund account of the employees of the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) was managed by a Board of Trustees of the Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1975, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India, a Special Deposit Scheme was implemented through the State Bank of India. The Board of Trustees of the Bank accordingly opened and maintained a Special Deposit Scheme Account, being Account No.1 with the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch. The interest for the calendar year, used to be released by the State Bank of India, in the first week of the month of January of the next year and from that amount, the Provident Fund dues of the employees of the Bank were disbursed.

(3) In the year 1999, an amount of Rs.1,03,17,176/- was paid by the State Bank of India through a Banker Cheque being the accrued interest for that period against the aforesaid Special Deposit Scheme Account. The Board of Trustees of the Bank, instead of crediting the same towards the principal balance, encashed the cheque and a sum of Rs.23,17,000/- and odd, was temporarily kept in its saving bank account maintained with the Guwahati Branch of the Bank, so as to settle the dues of the staff of the Bank, who had retired in the meantime. However, on 08.01.2000, the remaining balance of Rs.80,00,000/-, was reinvested in the Special Deposit Scheme Account maintained with the State Bank of India, which was duly apprised to the Provident Fund Commissioner, vide letter dated 08.01.2000. Upon receipt of the said amount of Rs.80,00,000/-which formed the part of the principal of the said Special Deposit Scheme Account, the State Bank of India continued to release the interest accrued in the said amount.

(4) However, on 19.09.2004, the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch by the communication bearing No.55, informed the Board of Trustees of the Bank that the said deposit of Rs.80,00,000/- have been treated as irregular deposits, in view of objection reportedly raised by the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance. By the said letter, it was intimated that the State Bank of India may have to recover the interest amount of Rs.35,22,822/-, paid up in the year 2002, on the aforesaid amount of Rs.80,00,000/-, if the Government of India does not accede to their request.

(5) On receipt of the said communication, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Bank on 24.11.2004 wrote a letter to the State Bank of India, Guwahati Branch requesting for re-examination of the matter and also stated that any action of the State Bank of India towards realizing the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.35,22,822/-, would adversely affect the interest of the Trust for no fault of its own. The State Bank of India authority despite receiving the said letter, had allegedly, stopped calculating interest on the above deposit of Rs.80,00,000/- with effect from 01.01.2003 and sat over the matter despite raising objection by the petitioner Bank.

(6) The record further reveals that on 19.09.2006, the Assistant General Manager of the State Ba