Planman Hr PVT. LTD. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Facts

The Petitioner, Planman HR Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court-II. In WP(C) 169/2022, the challenge was to an order dated March 18, 2021, directing pre-deposit of 20% of Rs. 7,00,18,734/- assessed as EPF dues for April 2017 to March 2018 under Section 7A of the EPF Act. In WP(C) 170/2022, the challenge was to an order dated March 18, 2021, directing pre-deposit of 30% of Rs. 6,29,179/- assessed as damages for delayed EPF remittance for July 2018 to April 2019 under Section 14B of the EPF Act. The Petitioner contended that PF contributions were deposited and that its bank accounts were attached by GST authorities.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions of both parties and perused the orders of the CGIT. It noted that the HDFC Bank communications showed that three out of four bank accounts of the Petitioner had been attached by GST authorities under Section 83 of the CGST Act, with substantial balances. Considering these peculiar facts, the Court modified the pre-deposit directions. Specifically, one account (Account No. 04408640000085) with a balance of Rs. 1,48,34,174.72 was ordered to remain additionally attached in favour of the CGIT. This amount shall not be released by HDFC Bank without further orders from the CGIT and will remain attached until the final disposal of the Petitioner's appeals pending before the CGIT. If the Petitioner is successful in its appeals, it is free to seek appropriate orders from the CGIT for the release of these amounts. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the CGIT erred in directing pre-deposit of 20% of the assessed EPF dues under Section 7-O of the EPF Act, despite the Petitioner's contention that contributions were deposited and its bank accounts were attached by GST authorities? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 7-O of the EPF Act). 2. Whether the CGIT erred in directing pre-deposit of 30% of the assessed damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act, considering the Petitioner's arguments regarding deposited contributions and GST attachment? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 14B and Section 7-O of the EPF Act). Petitioner's arguments: The delay in filing appeals before the CGIT was due to the pandemic and the CGIT's scheduling, which was condoned. The Petitioner has a strong case on merits. The Petitioner should be exempted from pre-deposit as its bank accounts have been attached by GST authorities, as evidenced by a communication from HDFC Bank dated April 2, 2019. Respondent's arguments: The pre-deposit was directed in terms of Section 7-O of the EPF Act, which is a mandatory provision, and no interference by the High Court is warranted.