<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1964 (7) TMI 47 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200177</link>
    <description>A discretionary levy of damages for delayed provident fund remittances under Section 14B must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. Repeated defaults of only a few days, followed by a long delay in initiating action and no earlier objection, supported the view that belated enforcement was unfair. The provision was treated as both reformative and punitive, so imposing damages many years after old defaults was held to be harsh and beyond proper exercise of discretion. The levy was therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 18:34:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (7) TMI 47 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200177</link>
      <description>A discretionary levy of damages for delayed provident fund remittances under Section 14B must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. Repeated defaults of only a few days, followed by a long delay in initiating action and no earlier objection, supported the view that belated enforcement was unfair. The provision was treated as both reformative and punitive, so imposing damages many years after old defaults was held to be harsh and beyond proper exercise of discretion. The levy was therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>