https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308539 Proceedings for recovery of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not barred by any express limitation period, and delay alone does not invalidate the demand unless the employer shows irretrievable prejudice from a change of position. Administrative circulars and instructions issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner were treated as non-binding guidelines that could not curtail the competent authority's statutory discretion, so the discrimination challenge to the prescribed rates also failed. The impugned damage orders were upheld because the authorities considered the relevant defaults and explanations, and the orders were not shown to be arbitrary or issued without application of mind. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 18:08:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308539 Proceedings for recovery of damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not barred by any express limitation period, and delay alone does not invalidate the demand unless the employer shows irretrievable prejudice from a change of position. Administrative circulars and instructions issued by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner were treated as non-binding guidelines that could not curtail the competent authority's statutory discretion, so the discrimination challenge to the prescribed rates also failed. The impugned damage orders were upheld because the authorities considered the relevant defaults and explanations, and the orders were not shown to be arbitrary or issued without application of mind. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308539