Food Corporation of India v. Asstt. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

rt $63 oh 24.05.2013 Present: hdr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv. for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Manchanda with Mr. Rajat Manchanda, Adv. for the respondent + W. P. (C) No.5572l2011 This order mav be read in continuation of the last order dated t7.0s.20r3. Learned counsel for the respondent has examined the record and, on instructions, state that no notice apart from the notice dated 1 1 .09. 1989 was issued to the petitioner under section 7A of the Act. He, however, submits that the proceedings have been going on and the petitioner has been participating in those proceedings. He submits that the petitioner has been producing the record and, therefore, would be aware of the fact that the assessment has been made for the period even after 1988-89. Merely because the proceedings may have been going on even in the subsequent years, it does not follow that the petitioner was put to notice in any way with regard to the assessment of the amount claimed under section 7A for the subsequent period i.e. post 1988-89. The demand raised by the respondent in th'e impugned order passed under section 7A of the Act is not restricted for the period upto 1988-89, but goes on to compute the amount for the period 1989-90 to 1998-99. The demand for the period 1989-90 to 1998-99 cannot be sustained since the show cause notice was limited for the period 1988-89, and that part of the Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. _1v dernand is accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall, however, be liable to 6ifro pay the dernand raised for the periodll'988-89, and the respondent may take independent proceedings in respect of the later period in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. , VIPIN SANGHI. J MAY 24,2013 ST