1 1 24.07.2026 Item No.08 Court No. 30 g.b. WPA 13069 of 2026 M/s. MTM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. Mr. Uddipan Banerjee Mr. Subhrakanti Samanta … for the Petitioner Mr. Avijit Tewary … for the respondent/ P.F. Authority 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II in a proceeding under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the authority concerned has noted specifically that the proceeding relates to the period from 01.04.1996 to 13.06.2024 against the petitioner herein. 3. The authority concerned has recorded as follows : “Accordingly after scrutiny of the records maintained by this office for the remittances made by the establishment for the period from 2 2 01.04.1996 to 13.06.2024, shows that there are certain payments which were made after the respective due dates and the total amount by way of damage and the amount of interest on such belated payments, which the establishment is liable to pay was duly intimated to the establishment vide Summon bearing no.WB/CAL/0048819/000/Enf 501/Damages/224 dated 14/05/2025 (04/07/2025) along with calculation sheet in Annexure-A, fixing a date of hearing on 24/07/2025.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the establishment has come into existence only in the year 2008 and, as such, the authority concerned has prima facie passed a wrong order wherein it has been noted that the proceedings relates to the period from 01.04.1996. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on placing a copy of the summons along with annexures showing statement regarding the damages calculations submits that the calculation in respect of the petitioner’s case is on and from 3 3 August 20, 2008 as per the case of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Provident Fund Authorities has placed a report in the form of an affidavit wherein it is stated as follows: “That the said orders both dated 25.09.2025 have been passed by the 14B authority under Section 14B and 7Q of the said Act levying damages of Rs. 13,09,628/ and imposing interest of Rs.6,76,756/- for belated remittance of the provident fund contribution and allied dues made by the petitioner establishment during the period from 01.04.1996 to 13.06.2024. It is humbly submitted that the mention of "01.04.1996" in the proceedings is solely attributable to the technical configuration of the EPFO application software. During the process of digitization of legacy physical records into the EPFO digital system, the date being "01.04.1996" was adopted as the default/base date for generation of system-based proceedings and notices. Consequently, the said date is reflected in the system-generated summons and proceedings. 4 4 It is also humbly submitted that the aforesaid default/system-generated date does not signify that the petitioner establishment was covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from 01.04.1996, nor does it imply that damages under Section 14B or interest under Section 7Q have been calculated for any period prior to the petitioner's actual date of coverage under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 i.e. 24.07.2008. It is further humbly submitted that the petitioner establishment has come under the purview of the Act only from its actual date of coverage i.e., w.e.f. 24.07.2008. Accordingly, the Summon, Annexure-A (Calculation Sheet) and the assessment orders have been prepared strictly on the basis of the petitioner's actual date of coverage i.e. from wage months from 08/2008 to 02/2024. The calculations of damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q commence only from the petitioner's date of coverage i.e. 24.07.2008 and no liability whatsoever has been computed for any period prior thereto. The copies of the Summon dated 14.05.2025/04.07.2025 and the Calculation Sheet annexed thereto establish that the computation of the said damages of 5 5 Rs.13,09,628/- and the said interest of Rs.6,76,756/-has been made only from the petitioner's actual date of coverage i.e. from wage months from 08/2008 to 02/2024. The figures reflected in the assessment orders are entirely consistent with the said calculation sheet. In the 14B proceedings the petitioner establishment did not raise any objection to the dues u/s 14B and 7Q as per the said summon with Annexure-A (Damages Calculation). The said 14B order dated 25.09.2025 is an appealable order and the petitioner establishment did not prefer any appeal against the said 14B order dated 25.09.2025 within the statutory time limit for preferring appeal. It is further humbly submitted that even if a fresh summons is generated by considering the petitioner's actual date of coverage i.e. 24.07.2008 instead of the default system date being 01/04/1996, the computation of damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 70 as well as the resultant liability, will remain exactly the same as earlier vide Summon No. WB/CAL/0048819/000/Enf 501/Damages/224 dated 14.05.2025/04.07.2025. Thus, the reference to 01.04.1996 has neither affected the 6 6 computation of dues nor altered the quantum of liability in any manner.” 7. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the explanation, as provided by the authority concerned in its report, this Court is not satisfied with the said explanation, in view of the fact that in several other writ applications no such error by the other authorized officers who passed such orders, has been noticed by this Court and as such the explanation provided has no substance, considering that all officers of the same rank, passing similar orders do not make such prima facie mistakes in their orders which, if ignored or permitted to remain, shall cause prejudice in future, while the actual assessment is being made. There is absolutely no reason as to why the period of assessment in the order and the calculation sheet shall differ in respect of the period under consideration. The discrepancy is a serious one and needs to be rectified and accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.09.2025, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II in a proceeding under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act is hereby set aside with liberty granted to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law rectifying the said mistake with a copy 7 7 of the order to be served upon the petitioner herein. 8. The writ application stands disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis after completion of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)