EPF Refund Claim Premature While Section 7A Appeal Remains Pending | HC

Case Details: B.S. Sundaravadivel Mudaliar & Sons vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1089 (HC-Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• R.Vijayakumar, J.
• C.Thanaseelan for the Petitioner. 
• I. Pinayagash, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a beedi manufacturing unit, had challenged the Union of India’s notification bringing the beedi industry within the scope of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, a challenge ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
During the pendency, directions under paragraph 78 of the EPF Scheme granted a waiver for the disputed period, and the petitioner had deposited amounts and created joint fixed deposits with the EPFO.

The Petitioner sought a refund of amounts recovered/deposited and a No Objection Certificate to encash joint fixed deposits, contending that since the employer’s contribution was waived for the relevant period, the employees’ contribution was also presumed waived.

The petitioner also stated that more than Rs. 25 lakhs remained in joint deposits with the EPFO, exceeding liability under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, order, and sought release of excess even before disposal of the appeal.
The EPFO stated that an order determining liability under Section 7-A was passed against the petitioner. The Petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, was dismissed for default.

By order dated 25-11-1998, the High Court directed restoration of the appeal subject to the deposit of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. Although the petitioner complied, this compliance was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal and the appeal was not restored.

The Appellate Tribunal was shifted to Chennai in 2017; the appeal papers were not transferred from New Delhi; and the issue of liability under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 had not been adjudicated on the merits.
It was noted that, since the petitioner’s appeal was yet to be disposed of, the question of directing a refund of the amount, as sought by the petitioner, would not at all arise.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner was at liberty to file a Memo before the Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, reporting compliance with the orders of the High Court, and to request the Appellate Tribunal at Delhi to transfer the appeal papers to the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.
Thus, the petitioner was at liberty to request EPFO to release an amount in excess of liability under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

List of Cases Referred to

• SHRI MAHILA GRIHA UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD v. UNION OF INDIA [2000] 1999 taxmann.com 2400 (SC) (para 1)
• S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Limited v. Central Provident fund Commissioner 2001 taxmann.com 4541 (SC) (para 4)