Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari V. The State of Assam and The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, Assam and The Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur, Cachar, Silchar, Assam and The Secretary-cum-Provident Fund Commissioner, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation and The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation and The Recovery Officer, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation and The Receiver, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh

WP(C)/7827/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and its representative, Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari, against various state authorities and the Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization (ATEPFO). The petitions challenged the actions taken by the ATEPFO, including a Certificate of arrears, a Notice of Demand, and an Order of Attachment of property due to non-payment of provident fund contributions and other dues. The court consolidated the petitions due to their interconnected issues and upheld the actions of the ATEPFO, citing the petitioner's consistent default in statutory payments as the basis for its decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 821559 (HC-GAUHATI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Assam Tea Plantation Provident Fund & Pension Fund & Deposit Link Insurance Scheme Act, 1955, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N C DAS; M DEVI; S S ROY; G GOSWAMI
• Assessee Lawyers: B DAS
• Keywords: Order of Attachment; Provident fund; Receiver appointment; Recovery Certificate; Tea Estate; Writ petition
• Section: 15; 11A; 14; 15B; 15G

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010266292017 2025:GAU-AS:16823 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Writ Petition [C] NO. 3735/2017 1. Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. (P) Ltd., Registered Office at 145, Rash Bihari Avenue, Kolkata-700029. 2. Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwari, S/o Lt. Siya Ram Tiwary, R/o 39, Chotto Bohera, P.O. - Boro Behera, District – Hoogli, West Bengal. ……………… Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 4. The Secretary-cum-Provident Fund Commissioner, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Nidhi Bhawan, Lalmari, Basistha, Nh-37, Pin-781029. 5. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Trunk Road, Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 2/18 Opposite Sumo Stand, Silchar, District – Cachar, Pin-788001. 6. The Recovery Officer, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Trunk Road, Opposite Sumo Stand, Silchar, District – Cachar, Pin-788001. 7. The Receiver, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, Laxmi Kantam Tea and Trading Co., Nazirpatty, P.O. - Silchar, Pin- 788001, Assam. ……………… . Respondents WITH Writ Petition [C] NO. 7827/2016 1. Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. (P) Ltd., Registered Office at 145, Rash Bihari Avenue, Kolkata- 700029. 2. Sri Radhey Shyam Tiwary, S/o Lt. Siya Ram Tiwary, R/o 39, Chotto Bohera, P.O. Boro Behera, District – Hoogli, West Bengal. ……………… Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur, Cachar, Silchar, Assam. 4. Managing Director, Bijulee Bhawan, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati. ……………… . Respondents Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 3/18 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates : For the Petitioners : Mr. B. Das, Advocate For the respondent ATEPFO : Mr. N.C. Das, Senior Advocate : Ms. M. Devi, Advocate For the respondent State of Assam : Mr. S.S. Roy, Junior Government Advocate For the respondent no. 7 : Ms. G. Goswami, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. As both the writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner and have raised issues, inter-connected with each other, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration as sought for by the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016, the petitioners have Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 4/18 challenged two actions directed for implementation in a meeting, held on 03.10.2016, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar in connection with the affairs of the petitioner no. 1, M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. [P] Ltd./Bhuvan Valley Tea Estate. As per the Minutes of the Meeting, the Deputy Commissioner [presently, District Commissioner], Cachar, Silchar directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner [Revenue], Cachar, Silchar to take steps against the Management of the Tea Estate as per rules for failure and non- performance on the part of the Tea Estate management and for its non- adherence to the conditions against which the parcels of land were leased out to the Tea Estate by the Government. The Assistant Labour Commissioner was directed to assist the Additional Deputy Commissioner in [a] formation of a Management Committee for taking over the affairs of the Tea Estate till further orders and; [b] starting pruning of the tea bushes by November, 2016. 3. The second writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 is preferred to assail : [i] a Certificate dated 09.11.2016 issued by the Authorised Officer, Board of Trustees, Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization [ATEPFO], [ii] a Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 issued to the Manager, M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Estate by the Recover officer, ATEPFO, Silchar Zone, Cachar; and [iii] an Order of Attachment of Immovable Property dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Recovery Officer, ATEPFO, Silchar Zone, Cachar. 4. The petitioner no. 1, M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. [P] Ltd. is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the company was re-named as such pursuant to a fresh Certificate of Incorporation dated 11.02.2013 issued by the Registrar of Companies, West Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 5/18 Bengal. The petitioner no. 2 is the authorized representative – Power of Attorney of the petitioner no. 1 company. The petitioners, for easy reference, are mentioned hereinafter as the petitioner. 5. The case projected by the petitioner, in brief, is that by virtue of a Deed of Transfer dated 31.03.2016, the assets and liabilities of M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Co., which was a partnership firm, was transferred to the petitioner no. 1 company. As a result, the Tea Estate in the name and style of Bhuvan Valley Tea Estate with the assets and liabilities of M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Company along with the parcels of land was transferred to the petitioner no. 1 company. 6. It may be stated that the Tea Estate faced a number of difficulties and disturbances during the previous years. There were issues in the Tea Estate regarding disbursement of wages, bonus, food grains and other basic amenities. There were agitations by the labourers and the labourers stopped working for some periods during the year 2016 which affected the running of the affairs of the Tea Estate as well as the petitioner. The Management also faced financial difficulties and after a discussion with the District Administration, Cachar, the petitioner executed a bond on 31.12.2015 giving an undertaking before the District Administration to pay the Government dues and the labour dues in sixty installments within a period of five years after registration of M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. [P] Ltd. on transfer from M/s Bhuvan Valley Tea Co. A series of Meetings were held between the petitioner and the District Administration, Cachar and it led to issuance of a series of instructions and directions in a Meeting held on 03.10.2016. The directions impugned in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016 have already been mentioned, briefly, hereinabove. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 6/18 7. During the subsistence of the bond executed on 31.12.2015, the Authorized Officer, ATEPFO issued a Certificate to the Recovery Officer, ATEPFO, Silchar Zone on 09.11.2016 certifying that a sum of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/- was due from the petitioner towards the arrear provident fund contributions / provident fund administration costs / Deposit Link Insurance [DLI] contributions / DLI Administration costs along with 15% statutory interest/levy of damage payable under the Assam Tea Plantation Provident Fund & Pension Fund & Deposit Link Insurance Scheme Act, 1955 [‘the 1955 Act’ and/or ‘the Act, 1955’, for short]. The Certificate was issued by the Authorised Officer, ATEPFO in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15 of the Act, 1955. Immediately after issuance of the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Recovery Officer, ATEPFO, Silchar Zone, Cachar [the respondent no. 6] issued a Notice of Demand on 18.11.2016 to the petitioner in reference to the Certificate dated 09.11.2016. By the Notice of Demand, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Trustees, ATEPFO had issued a Certificate for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/-. By enclosing a Statement as Annexure-A with the break- up of arrear amounts payable under different heads, the petitioner was asked to pay the said amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Demand. It was further informed that in case of failure to deposit the said arrear dues, steps would be taken for recovery of the said amount as per the provisions of Section 15B to Section 15G of the 1955 Act. It was further mentioned that in addition to the sum of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/-, the petitioner would also be liable to pay interest in terms of Section 11A of the Act, 1955 from the period of default of the arrear dues till the date of actual deposit and all costs charges and expenses incurred by the ATEPFO authorities. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 7/18 8. As the petitioner failed to clear the arrear dues within the stipulated period of time, the respondent no. 6 issued the impugned Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017 in exercise of powers conferred on the respondent no. 6 under Section 15B of the Act, 1955 and the respondent no. 6 had prohibited and restrained the petitioner to deal further with the property mentioned in the said Notice of Demand and the restrictions imposed was in terms of the Explanation to sub-section [1] of Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Specification of the properties indicated in the Order of Attachment include three divisions of the Tea Estate, namely, [i] North Bank Division, [ii] Bhuvan Vally Division, Motinagar, and [iii] Chingoor Division. 9. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent ATEPFO authorities; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Authorities, Assam for the State respondents; and Ms. G. Goswami, learned State Counsel for the respondent no. 7 in W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017. 10. Mr. D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016 was preferred and moved on 08.03.2017, it was submitted by the learned State Counsel that no adverse consequence would follow. Yet, the respondent ATEPFO authorities had proceeded to take steps as per the provisions of the Act, 1955, as amended in 2016. He has further submitted that on the day the Order of Attachment of Immovable Property was made, that is, on 08.03.2017, the respondent ATEPFO authorities had also appointed the respondent no. 7 in W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 as Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 8/18 the receiver purportedly in terms of the Explanation to sub-section [2] of Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is his contention that a receiver has to be appointed as per Rule 52 of the Income Tax [Certificate Proceedings] Rules, 1962. The receiver so appointed had to act within the limit of the powers conferred by the Income Tax [Certificate Proceedings] Rules, 1962. But, the receiver had exceeded his powers during the subsequent period thereby, making the subsequent measures on his part and on the part of the ATEPFO authorities bad and illegal. He has further submitted that the receiver so appointed had continued to manage the business of the Tea Estate since his appointment on 08.03.2017 till date. He has further contended that the arrear dues to the ATEPFO authorities were only Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/-, which was possible to be realized within a reasonable period. But, the receiver and the ATEPFO authorities have continued the arrangement first for a period of seven years and thereafter, have extended it through a new Deed of Agreement for a further period of twelve years in 2024. The aforesaid actions were not fair and against the object and purpose of appointing a receiver. He has submitted that the duties of a receiver have been laid down in Rule 50 of the Income Tax [Certificate Proceedings] Rules, 1962 whereby he is obligated to submit his accounts regularly in the prescribed manner. In view of such prolonged arrangements a direction is clearly called for an inquiry into the alleged maintenance of accounts and management of the properties of the petitioner taken over by the impugned Order of Attachment. He has submitted that the petitioner during all these years has been kept in dark about the accounts submitted by the receiver. He has, thus, contended that the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017 need to be interfered with. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 9/18 11. Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent ATEPFO authorities has submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner company/Tea Estate had defaulted consistently during the previous years in depositing the statutory dues under the Act, 1955 and the same led to the issuance of the Certificate on 09.11.2016. The arrear statutory dues included provident fund dues, etc. of the labourers of the Tea Estate and it rose up to Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/- as on the date of issuance of the Certificate. The ATEPFO authorities acting under the Act, 1955 had to resort to the Certificate proceedings for recovery of the said amount as the petitioner failed to deposit the demanded amount and the Order of Attachment had to be issued on 08.03.2017. He has further submitted that as the petitioner had a Tea Estate, the ATEPFO authorities had to appoint a receiver in order to realize the arrear amounts as well as to manage and preserve the attached properties and to collect rents and profits thereof. As the arrear dues could not be realized within a period of first seven years, a fresh Deed of Agreement had to be entered into with the receiver for a further period of twelve years on 13.09.2024. As such, no interference is called for to the Certificate, the Demand of Notice and the Order of Attachment, impugned in the writ petition as those were issued properly exercising powers under the Act, 1955. It is submitted by Mr. Das that a writ petition is to be decided on the basis of challenge and the fact situation obtaining on the date of preferring the writ petition. He has submitted that the subsequent actions, which have been agitated on behalf of the petitioner, have no bearing on the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016, and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 10/18 12. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 in W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 has submitted that after being appointed as a receiver on 08.03.2017 in terms of Rule 70 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, due and proper accounts of all the investments, receipts and disbursement were maintained by the receiver. Initially, a Deed of Agreement was executed between the ATEPFO through the Recovery Officer and the respondent no. 7-receiver on 06.04.2017 for a period of seven years, subject to renewal on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. On taking over possession of the Tea Estate as receiver, the receiver had found that the Tea Estate was besieged with numerous problems and the receiver had sincerely undertaken all the efforts to make payment of the Certificate amount of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/- and also the statutory interest accrued thereof for default. Ms. Goswami has submitted that to turn the Tea Estate into an operational one, the respondent no. 7 had to invest a huge amount and at the same time, to clear the statutory dues. Upon successful completion of the first term of lease of seven years, the ATEPFO authorities after being satisfied with the performance and discharge of responsibilities by the receiver had renewed and extended the period by executing another Deed of Agreement on 13.09.2024 for a further period of twelve years. It is submitted that the respondent no. 7 had initially invested an amount of Rs. 1,23,07,947.77/- for making the Tea Estate operational. The receiver also paid the amount mentioned in the Certificate and in addition to the said principal amount, further amounts are to be paid towards statutory interest and other dues. It is further submitted that after initial investment, the receiver had invested further amounts and proper accounts are being maintained and the same are being submitted to the ATEPFO authorities from time to time for their examination and Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 11/18 necessary action and those are being duly scrutinized. 13. In so far as the Certificate amount of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78 is concerned, it is found to be an admitted position that the petitioner defaulted consistently during the previous years in depositing the provident fund contributions, DLI contributions, etc. to the ATEPFO authorities. 14. The Assam Tea Plantation Provident Fund & Pension Fund & Deposit Link Insurance Scheme Act, 1955 [the Act, 1955] is an Act which has enacted to make provision for the framing of a compulsory provident fund and pension fund and deposit linked insurance [DLI] fund scheme for the employees employed in tea plantations in Assam. As per the Act, 1955, ‘employer’ inter alia means any person who is the proprietor of a plantation; and ‘employee’ means any person who is employed to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work in or in connection with a plantation. The contributions to be paid by the employer to the provident fund and pension fund and insurance fund scheme are compulsory. Certain provisions of the Act, 1955 were amended in 2016. The Amendment Act inter alia substituted Section 15 which has the nominal heading, ‘Recovery of money due from employer’. The substituted Section 15 reads as under :- Any amount due from the employer in relation to a plantation to which any scheme or the Insurance Scheme applies in respect of any contribution payable under this Act to the Fund or as the case may be to the Insurance Fund, damages recoverable under Section 16, accumulations required to be transferred under Section 14, statutory interest payable under Section 11[A] and sub-section 4[a] of Section 3 or any charges payable by him under any Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 12/18 other provision of his Act or of any provision of the Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, may, if the amount is in arrear, be recovered in the manner specified in Sections 15B to 15G. 15. The manner and procedure of recovery of moneys have been laid down in newly inserted Section 15A to 15G. Sub-section [1] to Section 15B has prescribed that where any amount is in arrear under Section 15, the Authorised Officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a Certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such Certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the plantation or, as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned therein – [a] attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the plantation or, as the case may be, the employer; [b] arrest of the employer and his detention in prison; and [c] appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the plantation or, as the case may be, the employer. 16. By Section 15G, certain provisions of Income Tax, 1961 have been made applicable to the Act, 1955. The provisions of Second and Third schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax [Certificate Proceedings] Rules, 1961, as in force from time to time, are made applicable with such modifications as may be necessary for their application to the Act, 1955, as if the said provisions and Rules are referred to the arrears of the amount mentioned in Section 15 of the Act, 1955 instead of the income tax. The proviso to Section 15G has provided that any reference in the said provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Rules to the word ‘assessee’ shall be construed as a reference to an ‘employer’ as defined in the 1955 Act. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 13/18 17. When an admitted position of default to the tune of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/- is considered against the action taken by the respondent ATEPFO authorities in issuing the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017, it is found that the actions in taking such steps through the Certificate, the Notice of Demand and the Order of Attachment are in conformity with the provisions of Section 15 to Section 15G of the Act, 1955. In view of the admitted position as regards default made by the petitioner towards contribution through the provident fund, pension fund and insurance fund as maintained by the ATEPFO authorities as per the statutory prescriptions of the 1955 Act, no interference is called for. 18. In the second writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017, as already stated above, assail is made to the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017 but no challenge is made to the appointment of the receiver by the Recovery Officer [the respondent no. 6] on 08.03.2017. It is submitted by Mr. Das that on 08.03.2017 when the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 was preferred, the petitioner was in dark about the appointment of the receiver by the respondent no. 6 on 08.03.2017. He has submitted that it was only after filing of the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent ATEPFO authorities in W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017, the petitioner came to learn about the appointment of the receiver. It is the appointment of the receiver and the subsequent measures taken by the ATEPFO authorities and the receiver, which are brought through the affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner in these writ proceedings, which are fraught with Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 14/18 irregularities. He has submitted that for deciding the writ petition, such subsequent measures taken by the ATEPFO authorities and the receiver are required to be taken into consideration to adjust all their actions from the very inception. 19. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge about appointment of the receiver on 08.03.2017. It is, however, noticed that the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 in their affidavit-in-opposition, filed on 16.11.2017, had annexed the Order of Appointment of the receiver, which was made by the respondent no. 6 on 08.03.2017. Despite having the knowledge of appointment of the receiver as far back as on 16.11.2017, the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit only on 21.11.2023 stating inter alia that the conduct of a receiver had to be strictly as per the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act and the receiver is duty bound to keep proper and accurate accounts and inventory of all assets for submission to the appointing authority from time to time. The petitioner has sought to contend that the receiver appeared to have sold tea at a lesser price than the average market price and such actions are not in tune with the duties and responsibilities of a receiver appointed as per the statutory provisions. 20. Sub-section [1] to Section 15D has laid down that when the Authorized Officer issues a Certificate to a Recovery Officer under Section 15B, it shall not be open to the employer to dispute before the Recovery Officer the correctness of the amount or any other materials in the Certificate and no objection to the Certificate on any ground whatsoever shall be entertained by the Recovery Officer. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 15/18 21. In so far as the submission regarding lack of knowledge of the appointment of the receiver on 08.03.2017 is concerned, it cannot be comprehended that the petitioner being the owner of the Tea Estate, had no knowledge as regards appointment of the receiver by the ATEPFO authorities as the receiver was appointed with the task of management of the Tea Estate right after his appointment. In any view of the matter, the petitioner was aware of the appointment of the receiver at least from 16.11.2017 onwards. The petitioner had chosed to wait for about six years to raise questions about the activities of the receiver only in its additional affidavit filed on 21.11.2023. 22. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in view of the subsequent actions and measures taken by the respondent ATEPFO authorities, the relief sought for in the first writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016 had become infructuous. 23. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 7-receiver, it has been stated that after the Agreement dated 06.04.2017, it made an investment to the extent of more than 11 crores till date. Upon taking possession of the tea estate in 2017, the respondent no. 7 paid the Certificate amount of Rs. 1,25,98,226.78/- and certain other pending arrears, gratuity, etc. to the ATEPFO. The Deed of Agreement dated 06.04.2017 and 13.09.2024 have been made part of its affidavit-in-opposition. Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 16/18 24. This Court on 03.10.2024 made a query to the respondent ATEPFO authorities to place on record as to how the amount received from the receiver were being adjusted against the dues of the petitioner and the basis thereof. In addition, the respondent ATEPFO authorities were also asked to bring on record the inventory which was prepared at the time when the Tea Estate was handed over to the receiver. In deference to the Order dated 03.10.2024, an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 was filed on 05.11.2024 wherein it stated that pursuant to the Deed of Agreement, the receiver so appointed, deposited an amount of Rs. 1,06,06,872.00/- against Recovery Certificate amount of Rs. 1,25,98,226.79/- and as a result, there remained a balance of Rs. 19,95,354.79/-, which was not deposited by the receiver till that date. It has been further averred that apart from the balance amount of Rs. 19,95,354.79/-, statutory interest @15% has to be computed upon deposit of the entire Recovery Certificate dues and the same would be recoverable from the receiver. 25. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it is the stand of the ATEPFO authorities that as on date, the entire recoverable amount have not been recovered from the receiver and in view of such non-recovery, the ATEPFO authorities had to enter into the arrangement with the receiver for a period of twelve years on 13.09.2024. 26. It is a normal rule that in any litigation, the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the basis of fact situation obtaining in a writ petition at the commencement of the lis. Any subsequent events or developments can be taken into consideration to accord relief to the parties Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 17/18 provided only when such events or developments have a material impact on those rights and a bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief. In other words, an action must be tried in all its stages on a cause of action as it existed at the commencement of an action. The challenges were made in these writ petitions to the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017. The Order of Appointment dated 08.03.2017; the Deeds of Agreement executed between the ATEPFO authorities and the receiver on 06.04.2017 and 13.09.2024; and the subsequent actions and measures taken on that basis were not challenged. Those subsequent events had no actual impact and bearing on the prior actions and measures taken by the ATEPFO authorities vide the Certificate dated 09.11.2016; the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016; and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017, exercising the powers under Section 15 to Section 15G of the Act, 1955. The assail to those measures taken under Section 15 to Section 15G has already been turned down. 27. The powers of a receiver and his duties are laid down in Rule 48 and Rule 50 of the Income Tax [Certificate Proceedings] Rules, 1962. As per Rule 48, a receiver appointed has powers for realization, management, protection and preservation of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Tax Recovery Officer [to be read as ‘the Recovery Officer’, hereinafter] thinks fit. A receiver, however, has duty under Rule 50 to [a] furnish such security [if any] as the Recovery Officer thinks fit, duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property; [b] submit his accounts at such periods and in such Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 18/18 form as the Recovery Officer directs; [c] pay the amount due from him as the Recovery Officer directs; and [d] be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence. The steps and measures taken by the receiver and the ATEPFO authorities subsequent to the receiver’s appointment on 08.03.2017 may be causes of action for the petitioner to question in a separate and independent proceeding but the same cannot be said to have any material bearing or impact on the Certificate dated 09.11.2016, the Notice of Demand dated 18.11.2016 and the Order of Attachment dated 08.03.2017, which are found to be taken in conformity with the provisions of Section 15 to Section 15G of the Act, 1955, as amended. 28. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned therein, this Court does not find any merit in the challenges made in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 and therefore, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted. Consequently, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3735/2017 is found to be bereft of any merits. In view of the actions taken by the ATEPFO authorities, the action made in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016 were found have been superseded by the action taken by the ATEPFO authorities under the statutory prescription of the Act, 1955, as amended and the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7827/2016 is not required to be adjudicated upon on merits as it has been rendered infructuous, as already submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by Pallabi Das Date: 2025.11.26 11:19:17 +05'30' "