Further, on the admitted facts that the appellant company had paid all the inspection charges due up to February 1981, by 3 4 1981, i.e., even before the order dated 30 4 1981 was passed by the Commissioner granting the temporary exemption as well as before the final order dated 10 12 1982 passed by the Central Government granting exemption under Section 17, there was numberdelay in payment of the inspection charges.
The appellant Company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order dated 7 10 1982, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the Commissioner levying damages of Rs 1,01,089.50 under Section 14 B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act for delay in payment of the inspection charges payable under Section 17 3 A a of the Act.
On 6 5 1982, the Commissioner issued a showcase numberice to the appellant company demanding from it the Employees Provident Fund Contributions Family Pension Fund Contributions Administrative Charges Inspection Charges Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Fund Contribution for the periods August 1976 to April 1979, June 1979 to September 1979 and September 1979 to February 1981.
On the admitted matrix of the facts, it is clear that since the appellant company was granted exemption by the Commissioner with effect from 1 8 1976, the appellant companypany was number liable to pay the administrative charges.
The High Court by the order impugned in the present appeal, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant companypany was liable to pay both administrative charges as well as inspection charges for the period in question and since there was a delay in payment of the said charges, the damages levied were valid.
It appears that during the period when the said applications before the Central Government and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner were pending for exemption and for the interim exemption respectively, the appellant companypany paid all the inspection charges which were due up to February 1981 by 3 4 1981.
The Commissioner by his order dated 30 4 1981 granted the exemption from 1 8 1976.
Eventually, the Central Government granted the exemption by its numberification dated 10 12 1982.
Hence, the only charges that the appellant company was liable to pay were the inspection charges under Section 17 3 A a of the Act since such charges become payable when the exemption is granted.
In fact, the first numberice calling upon the appellant company to show cause as to why they should number be saddled with the inspection charges among others, was issued to them only on 6 5 1982.The numberification did number state as to from which date the exemption was granted and from which date, therefore, the period of 3 years was to be calculated.
Subsequently, on 7 10 1982, the final order was passed levying damages for the delay in payment of the inspection charges amounting to Rs 1,01,089.50.
The Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 the Scheme framed under Section 6 C of the Act came into effect from 1 8 1976.
The numberification stated that the exemption was granted for 3 years.
The said charges were leviable under paragraph 8 of the Scheme in companynection with the administration of the fund only if the fund had been handed over by the appellant companypany to the Commissioner in case the exemption was number granted.
On 13 91976, the appellant company made an application to the Central Government under Section 17 of the Act for exemption of their establishment from the said Scheme.
Pending the application before the Central Government, the appellant companypany had filed an application before the Commissioner under paragraph 28 7 of the Scheme.
It is this order which was challenged by the appellant company by a writ petition before the High Court.
As per Annexure A to the said numberice, the total amount so demanded was Rs 1,50,484.
