Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
M/S POPULAR VEHICLES & SERVICES, KUTTUKARAN CENTRE,MAMANGALAM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM – Appellant
Versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. company covered under employees provident fund act. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments about delay in penalty proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on reasonable time for action. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. final decision affecting demand notice. (Para 9) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a company covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and admittedly satisfying the contributions as prescribed under the statute. The dispute in this writ petition is essentially with reference to the demand of interest under the provisions of Section 7Q of the Act for the various periods starting from March 1998 till March 2020.
2. I have heard Sri.Benny Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. John Mani, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri.Jithesh Menon, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rdrespondent – Bank.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated, as evidenced by Ext.P1 – show cause notice culminating in the final order at Ext.P3 is hopelessly barred by limitation. He would fairly point o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
