TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 2587 of 2004 allowing the appeal in part preferred from the judgment and order dated 25.3.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 38753 of 1998. 3. Respondent is an 'employer' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(17) of the Act. Indisputably, prior to issuance of the notification dated 27.3.1992, the wage ceiling of the employees was restricted to Rs. 1,600/- per month. The same was increased to Rs. 3000/- per month with a view to bring them within the purview of the Act. 4. Validity of the said notification was challeng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estricting the period of payment of interest to two years only. 2. No damage should be directed to be levied in the facts and circumstances of the case as Section 85B of the Act provides for an enabling provision and does not make is mandatory to levy damages in every case. 9. Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration the purported effect of Regulation 31C of the Regulations which provides for levy of interest as also damages. Mr. C.V. Francis, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loyer is not in dispute. An employee being required to be compulsorily insured, the employer is bound to make his part of the contribution. An employee is also bound to make his contribution under the Act. But the same does not mean that levy of damages in all situations would be imperative. 16. Section 85B of the Act uses the words 'may recover'. Levy of damages thereunder is by way of penalty. The Legislature limited the jurisdiction of the authority to levy penalty, i.e., not exceeding the amount of arrears. Regulation 31C of the Regulations, therefore, in our opinion, must be construed keeping in view the language used in the Legislative Act and not de hors the same. 17. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made a distinction between the cases involving 'recovery of money' from an employer who had withheld the contributions made by the workmen in trust and other cases. It was in that situation opined supra. We are not concerned with such a situation herein. 19. A penal provision should be construed strictly. Only because a provision has been made for levy of penalty, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that penalty must be levied in all situations. Such an intention on the part of the legislature is not decipherable from Section 85B of the Act. When a discretionary jurisdiction has been conferred on a statutory authority to levy penal damages by reason of an enabling provision, the same cannot be construed as impera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n considered on merits. 21. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr. [2007]291ITR519(SC) , this Court stated: 40. Thus, it appears that there is distinct line of authorities which clearly lays down that in considering a question of penalty, means rea is not a relevant consideration. Even assuming that when the statute says that one is liable for penalty if one furnishes inaccurate particulars, it may or may not by itself be held to be enough if the particulars furnished are found to be inaccurate is anything more needed but the question would still be as to whether reliance placed on some valuation of an approved valuer and, therefore, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not deliberate, me....