https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176414 Previous sanction for prosecution under the Employees' Provident Funds Act was held valid even though it did not separately name the company, because the sanction described the offences and authorised the Inspector's report, and cognizance was not barred where the report included the company and no mala fides were shown. The establishment was also held covered by the Act under the notification issued for trading and commercial establishments, as its cold storage and purchase and sale of potatoes fell within storage-related activity, even though it was not a scheduled factory under the factory-based provision. Liability for provident fund defaults was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:16:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176414 Previous sanction for prosecution under the Employees' Provident Funds Act was held valid even though it did not separately name the company, because the sanction described the offences and authorised the Inspector's report, and cognizance was not barred where the report included the company and no mala fides were shown. The establishment was also held covered by the Act under the notification issued for trading and commercial establishments, as its cold storage and purchase and sale of potatoes fell within storage-related activity, even though it was not a scheduled factory under the factory-based provision. Liability for provident fund defaults was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176414