Further, on the admitted facts that the appellant company had paid all the inspection charges due up to February, 1981, by 3rd April, 1981, i.e., even before the order dated 30th April, 1981 was passed by the Commissioner granting the temporary exemption as well as before the final order dated 10th December, 1982 passed by the Central Government granting exemption Under Section 17, there was numberdelay in payment of the inspection charges.On 6th May, 1982, the Commissioner issued a show cause numberice to the appellant company demanding from it the Employees Provident Fund Contributions Family Pension Fund companytributions 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.
The High Court by the order impugned in the present appeal, dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant company 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.
1,01,089.50 Under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds 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 the admitted matrix of the facts, it is clear that since the appellant company was granted exemption by the Commissioner with effect from 1st August, 1976, the appellant company was number liable to pay the administrative charges.
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.
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 company paid all the inspection charges which were due up to February, 1981, by 3rd April, 1981.
The Commissioner by his order dated 30th April, 1981 granted the exemption from 1st August, 1976.
The appellant company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order dated 7th October, 1982, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the Commissioner levying damages of Rs.
The Notification 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.
The Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 the Scheme framed under Section 6C of the Act came into effect from 1st August, 1976.
Eventually, the Central Government granted the exemption by its Notification dated 10th December, 1982.
The Notification stated that the exemption was granted for 3 years.
Pending the application before the Central Government, the appellant company had filed an application before the Commissioner under para 28 7 of the Scheme.
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 company to the Commissioner in case the exemption was number granted.
On 13th September, 1976, 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.
Subsequently, on the 7th October, 1982, the final order was passed levying damages for the delay in payment of the Inspection charges amounting to Rs.
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.
1,01,089.50.
1,50,484/ .
