https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261825 Damages proceedings under Section 14B could not be fastened on the principal employer where the contractor held an independent provident fund code number and was treated as an independent employer. The Court applied its earlier view that a registered contractor with a separate EPF code is not to be proceeded against on the same footing as the principal employer. It also noted that an earlier writ order had already set aside the prior demand and had granted liberty only to recover from the contractor's legal heirs; that order had attained finality and could not be reopened against the petitioner company. The demand proceedings were quashed. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261825 Damages proceedings under Section 14B could not be fastened on the principal employer where the contractor held an independent provident fund code number and was treated as an independent employer. The Court applied its earlier view that a registered contractor with a separate EPF code is not to be proceeded against on the same footing as the principal employer. It also noted that an earlier writ order had already set aside the prior demand and had granted liberty only to recover from the contractor's legal heirs; that order had attained finality and could not be reopened against the petitioner company. The demand proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261825