EPF Platform by ESI PF Consultant in Ahmedabad

Best ESI PF Consultant in Ahmedabad

Best ESI PF Consultant in Ahmedabad by Connect 2 Payroll Services Provider in India. Matrix of Facts In this case, the petitioner contested the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's authority to regard the petitioner's jute mill under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), as an unexempted enterprise. Two jute mills that were formerly a part of the Anglo India Jute Mills entity Limited are owned by the petitioner, a private entity. 1951 saw the creation of a trust pertaining to the mills' provident fund, which became operational in 1949. Through a notice, the West Bengal government exempted the mills from the Act's restrictions in 1960. Different code numbers were issued to the mills. Over time, ownership shifted, and in 2016, the petitioner purchased the Middle Mill, one of the mills, asserting that no provident fund obligations existed at the time. Legal Concern Citing ownership changes and adding a new section, section 29, Appendix-A, paragraph 27AA in the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, the Provident Fund Authorities demand that the petitioner comply as the Best ESI PF Consultant in Ahmedabad by Connect 2 Payroll Services Provider in India. However, the petitioner argued that once the exemption under Section 17 of the Act is granted, it remains in effect until it is revoked by the relevant Government. Parties' Disagreements the petitioner After exemption was granted in 1960, it was never revoked. As an unexempted institution, the Provident Fund Authorities cannot require compliance. The petitioner backs up its claims with pertinent court rulings. Those who responded: The 2001 addition of Clause 29 becomes applicable upon a change of ownership. The Anglo India Jute Mills were the initial recipients of this exemption; individual mills under new ownership are not eligible. The Court's Opinion The Court took note of the exemption that the West Bengal government had previously given to the mills in 1960. The Court noted that the Provident Fund Authorities claimed the exemption would automatically expire in 2001 by citing a newly inserted condition. The Court cited earlier rulings, most notably Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2024, wherein the Court acknowledged that an exemption does not automatically expire unless it is specifically revoked or modified by the relevant Government. The Court also concluded that an amendment to the statutory scheme cannot supersede the exemption that has been granted. The argument that the additional language immediately nullifies the exemption was denied by the court. The petitioner argued that the new provision could not supersede the exemption until it was canceled or amended by the relevant Government in accordance with Section 17. The Court upheld this position.