B.K.NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S. S. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D. Awasthi, for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Amit Negi for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a public school engaged in imparting education and the school is run by the trust, namely Tulsi Ram Maheshwari Parbraham Anglo Sanskrit School Trust Society. The trust suffered heavy losses continuously for seven years and as such the employer's contribution to the Employees Provident Fund could not be deposited by the petitioner, as a result a recovery certificate was issued by the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, directing the petitioner to deposit the sum due against the petitioner towards its contribution to the provident fund together with interest chargeable under Section 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) total amount of Rs. 25,04,085. The recovery certificate was followed by issuance of a demand notice dated 22.5.2007 requiring the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,04,085 failing which proceedings for recovery of the said amount shall be taken under Section 8 (2) of the Act. Since the recovery certificate dated 17.4.2007 was issued by the respondent No. 2 without passing any assessment orders under Section 7A (1) (b) or 7Q of the Act and without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7-1 of the Act, however the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.9.2007 copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly conceded that no appeal lies under Section 7-1 of the Act against a recovery certificate issued under Section 8 of the Act and the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as not maintainable cannot be faulted with.
(3.) HE has further been submitted that he is confining his challenge in this writ petition only to the recovery certificate dated 17.4.2007 and the demand notice dated 22.5.2007.;