JUDGMENT Rohit B. Deo, J. (Oral) - Heard Shri Hitesh N. Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Atul Jayant Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. 3. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.8.2014 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("Tribunal" for short), by and under which, the order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("Act" for short), is set aside. Petitioner 1 is constituted under the provisions of the Act. Petitioner 2 is the competent authority whose order is set aside by the Tribunal. 4. Respondent - 1 is engaged in business of ginning and pressing of raw cotton at its factory situated in the district of Akola. It is not in dispute that the establishment of the respondent is covered under the provisions of the Act with effect from 1.1.2006. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the establishment defaulted in remitting the provident fund and other related dues of its employees for the period December 2004 to March 2010, which led to an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act. The petitioners contend that although the establishment submitted the balance sheets for the financial years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the other relevant documents were not produced and the Enforcement Officer was constrained to submit report dated 10.2.2012, on the basis of available record, a copy of which report was duly supplied to the representative of the establishment. The establishment submitted its response to the report on 11.7.2012 and after considering the material on record and hearing the representative of the establishment, the competent authority passed a detailed order on 24.6.2013 assessing and quantifying a sum of Rs. 24,46,292/as due and payable by the establishment for the period December 2004 to March 2010. The petitioners contend that the Tribunal erred in law in setting aside the well reasoned order of the competent authority and failed to appreciate that the establishment has withheld the best evidence and an adverse inference must necessarily be drawn against the establishment. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Hitesh Verma, would submit that the finding recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and the burden of identification of the beneficiaries is wrongly shifted on the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Hitesh Verma, would submit that the finding recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and the burden of identification of the beneficiaries is wrongly shifted on the petitioners. Per contra, the learned counsel for the establishment Shri Atul Pathak would support the order impugned. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsels at length and, with their assistance, has scrutinized the material on record. Having done so, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order impugned, much less infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 7. The submission of the petitioners that the establishment did not produce the relevant documents, save and except the balance sheets for the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, appears to be contrary to record. The learned Tribunal notes in paragraph 11 of the order impugned that the inspection report dated 7.2.2012 would reveal that the relevant records pertaining to the period 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 like attendance register, wages and salary register etc were duly examined by the Enforcement Officer. The assessment is done only on the basis of the balance sheets, without considering the relevant record, and a indeed, a factually incorrect submission is made even before this Court that other than balance sheets, the relevant record was not made available by the establishment. The assessment made under section 7A of the Act, is vitiated on this ground alone. 8. The deposition of the Enforcement Officer, which is noted by the competent authority under Section 7A of the Act, in paragraph D of the assessment order in a tabular form, discloses the basis of the assessment and is produced herein below: Sr. No. Heads Year Total 2005 06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 1 Crushing Charges 640360 1938300 2383500 1984669 1794900 874129 2 Weekly wages 34920 196260 231180 3 Ginning pre. Wages 3603 213711 239564 456878 4 Salaries 188698 332000 235600 173025 127200 1056523 5 Security Charges 48333 72599 120932 6 Bales Pressing Exp. & Hamali 90745 90745 7 Ginning Exp. 22187 22187 Total 867581 2728604 2931263 2157694 2035032 10726174 9. The crushing charges paid by the establishment from to 2009-2010 of Rs. 87,41,929/ ( Rs. Eighty Seven Lacs Fourty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine) are treated as salary charges. & Hamali 90745 90745 7 Ginning Exp. 22187 22187 Total 867581 2728604 2931263 2157694 2035032 10726174 9. The crushing charges paid by the establishment from to 2009-2010 of Rs. 87,41,929/ ( Rs. Eighty Seven Lacs Fourty One Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Nine) are treated as salary charges. The submission of the establishment was and is, that the crushing charges represents the amount paid to an independent establishment Shakambari Industries which is also covered under the Act and is assigned a separate code number NG/AKL/110099. The establishment, therefore, contended, that the amount paid to Shakambari Industries as crushing charges cannot be considered as component of salary / wages for assessing provident fund dues of the establishment. This submission of the establishment is brushed aside by the competent authority by observing that the submission is an afterthought and that even otherwise the contract of service is given to the sister concern. It is difficult to appreciate the logic underlying the observation of the competent authority. Irrefutably, the crushing charges were paid to an establishment which was independently covered under the Act and was assigned a separate code number. The observation that the submission is an afterthought is indicative of total non application of mind. 10. The Enforcement Officer deposed that Rs. 1,20,932/were paid as security charges in the year 2006-07 and 2007-2008. This payment of security charges is considered by the competent authority for assessing the provident fund dues. The Enforcement Officer has deposed that Rs. 90,745/was paid by the establishment as balance pressing expenditure and "Hamali" and Rs. 22,187/was paid as ginning expenditure. The submission of the establishment, which is noted, by the competent authority in paragraph E of the assessment order, is that subject to identification of workers, the expenditure on the aforesaid two heads would be acceptable. The competent authority, in paragraph F(6) of the assessment order brushed aside the submission that the beneficiaries needed to be identified, by observing that it is the duty of the establishment to maintain the relevant record, which has not been done. This observation, again ignores the fact that the establishment did produce before the Enforcement Officer the relevant record. 11. It is well settled that the Provident Fund Organization is the custodian and trustee of the funds of the subscribers and is duty bound to return the contribution to the subscribers. This observation, again ignores the fact that the establishment did produce before the Enforcement Officer the relevant record. 11. It is well settled that the Provident Fund Organization is the custodian and trustee of the funds of the subscribers and is duty bound to return the contribution to the subscribers. The purpose of the Act is not to impose levy much less levy in the nature of tax on the employer. Identification of employees is therefore, a must before the assessment of dues is made. The submission of the learned counsel that the burden was on the establishment to identify the beneficiaries, does not take the case of the petitioners any further since despite the production of the relevant record, no effort was made by the Enforcement Officer to arrive at the number of employees and much less to identify them. 12. In the light of the discussion supra, the order impugned, to the extend the assessment order under section 7A of the Act is set aside, is unexceptionable. 13. In the factual matrix, an opportunity needs to be accorded to the petitioners to conduct a fresh inquiry under section 7A of the Act and to pass a fresh and reasoned order in the light of the discussion supra. The competent authority is at liberty to direct the Enforcement Officer to further inquire and / or investigate and to submit a fresh report, if deemed necessary. The competent authority shall take into consideration the entire material including the record made available by the establishment to the Enforcement Officer, and which is referred to in the report of the Enforcement Officer, and to refrain from passing the assessment only on the balance sheets. 14. The proceedings are remitted to the competent authority - petitioner 2 herein to conduct a fresh inquiry in the light of the observation supra. 15. The petition is disposed of in the afore stated terms.