https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174156 SC held that criminal proceedings under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are maintainable against an establishment exempted under Section 17 for contravention of Section 6. The Court ruled that cancellation of exemption under Section 17(4) is merely consequential and procedural, and does not constitute a "penalty" barring prosecution under Section 14(2A). Section 17 is a self-contained provision on exemption and its withdrawal, without imposing punishment for an offence. Objects and Reasons of the 1988 Amendment were interpreted to extend, not restrict, penal provisions to exempted establishments. Trial was directed to proceed only for offences under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A). en-us Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174156 SC held that criminal proceedings under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are maintainable against an establishment exempted under Section 17 for contravention of Section 6. The Court ruled that cancellation of exemption under Section 17(4) is merely consequential and procedural, and does not constitute a "penalty" barring prosecution under Section 14(2A). Section 17 is a self-contained provision on exemption and its withdrawal, without imposing punishment for an offence. Objects and Reasons of the 1988 Amendment were interpreted to extend, not restrict, penal provisions to exempted establishments. Trial was directed to proceed only for offences under Sections 14(1A) and 14(2A). Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174156