https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272646 Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act was construed to cover both new establishments and existing establishments that later reached the prescribed employee strength. The exemption period was held to run from the date the establishment is set up, and the threshold-based applicability language in the Scheme did not create a further waiting period after the employee limit was first reached. Reading the provision with paragraph 26(1)(a) confirmed that the exemption was intended to give breathing time only to genuinely new establishments. The contrary construction was rejected. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 May 2018 16:08:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272646 Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act was construed to cover both new establishments and existing establishments that later reached the prescribed employee strength. The exemption period was held to run from the date the establishment is set up, and the threshold-based applicability language in the Scheme did not create a further waiting period after the employee limit was first reached. Reading the provision with paragraph 26(1)(a) confirmed that the exemption was intended to give breathing time only to genuinely new establishments. The contrary construction was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Jan 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272646