HC Dismisses EPF’s Writ as Section 7A Order Was Based on Suspicion Not Evidence

Case Details: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Presiding Officer - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 541 (HC-Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J.
• K. Muralisankar for the Appellant.
• B. Prasannavinoth for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, an EPF authority, passed an order under section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, making the respondent-establishment liable to pay an amount towards PF contribution.

The said order was interfered with by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that EPF passed the order based on assumptions and doubts without establishing the liability of the respondent-establishment. Thereafter, EPF filed a writ petition against the order of the Appellate Tribunal.

It was found that the order passed by EPF was not based upon material before it, nor based upon any enquiry report, but said order was passed on mere suspicion and doubt about the stand of the respondent-establishment.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the entire granite business in the State of Tamil Nadu came to an end by virtue of a policy decision taken by the Government of India. The respondent-establishment was closed in 2013, but the writ petition was filed after a delay of five years. The writ petition, filed by EPF against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, was to be dismissed.