Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Horticulture Experiment Station Gon Ikoppal, Coorg Vs The Regional Provident Fund Organization (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No(S). 2136 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 23/02/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Horticulture Experiment Station Gon Ikoppal Vs Regional Provident Fund Organization (Supreme Court)

Facts- The undisputed facts culled out from the record are that the establishment of the appellant(s) is covered under the provisions of the Act 1952. On 31st December, 1974, under Code no.KN/8573 under scheduled head “Fruit Orchards”, the appellant(s) failed to comply with the provisions of Act 1952 from 1st January, 1975 to 31st October, 1988. For non-compliance of the mandate of Act 1952, proceedings were initiated under Section 7A and dues towards contribution of EPF for the intervening period of 1st January, 1975 to 31st October, 1988 amounting to Rs.74,288/-were assessed by the competent authority and after adjudication, that was paid by the appellant to the office of EPF. Thereafter, the authorities issued a notice under Section 14B of the Act 1952 to charge damages for the delayed payment of provident fund amount which was levied for the period January 1978 to September, 1988 and called upon the appellant(s) to pay damages of Rs.85,548/-. The High Court under the impugned judgment held that once the default in payment of contribution is admitted, the damages as being envisaged under Section 14B of the Act 1952 are consequential and the employer is under an obligation to pay the damages for delay in payment of contribution of EPF under Section 14B of the Act 1952, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals.

Conclusion- The three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors and others, while examining the scope and ambit of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that as far as the penalty inflicted under the provisions is a civil liability is concerned, mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing civil penalties.

Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject, it is well-settled that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty or damages for breach of civil obligations and liabilities.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031