AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner is an assessee under the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity "EFP Act"), who challenges Exhibit P3 order of assessment made against the petitioner. The petitioner''s contention is that on similar grounds, earlier, an order was issued against the petitioner, which was challenged in appeal and the appellate authority has remanded the matter for re-consideration, as is evident from Exhibit P5.
Admittedly no appeal has been filed from Exhibit P3 and this Court cannot set it aside under Article 226 merely for the reason that for an earlier period the appellate authority has remanded the matter. No procedural irregularity has been pointed out, which would clothe this Court with the powers to interfere with Exhibit P3 order. It is also pertinent that the statute provides for an appeal within a period of 60 days and also confers power on the authority to condone delay of a further 60 days. As has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Krishna Poduval, , when the period of limitation has run out, the assessee cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to resurrect unenforceable causes of action, however harsh, the effect of the provisions may be on an assessee or litigant. Therefore, this Court cannot invoke its powers under Article 226 to extend a period conferred by a statute. In such circumstance, no interference can be made on Exhibit P3 by this Court under Article 226.
On the fervent plea of the petitioner regarding the impecunious circumstance, the petitioner is granted 12 monthly instalments as indicated herein below.
(i) The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent within two weeks of receipt of the same.
(ii) The 1st respondent shall quantify the amounts due and inform the petitioner in writing the amounts due as on 31.03.2014.
(iii) The 1st respondent shall grant twelve monthly instalments for the payment of the dues, starting from 18.04.2014.
(iv) Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the remittances as per this order are made without any default.
(v) On the petitioner making two consecutive defaults, the recovery steps initiated shall revive and continue.
(vi) On the 12th instalment being satisfied, the 1st respondent shall issue a statement of the interest accrued from 31.03.2014 which shall be satisfied by the petitioner on the 18th of the succeeding month.
(vii) On the petitioner satisfying the entire arrears, the recovery proceedings shall be unenforceable.
(viii) It is made clear that the respondents will be free to proceed with the recovery if the above conditions are not complied with.
The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Bank submits that as per order in Exhibit P4, the Bank has taken a Demand Draft for the amount specified in Exhibit P4, for transmission to the Provident Fund authorities. In the context of the directions of this Court in the judgment, necessarily the amounts would have to be credited to the petitioner''s account.
It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of Exhibit P3 order; nor has it been sustained on merits, but no interference is made only on the petitioner having not filed an appeal within the time stipulated.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.