RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect as pointed out by the office is ignored for the present.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in course of the argument confines his prayer to the extent of issuance of direction upon the respondents not to proceed with the recovery proceeding till disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, being Appeal No.ATA 1 of 2018, against the liability imposed upon the petitioner vide orders dated 31st October, 2017 (modified vide corrigendum contained in letter no.3672 dated 6th December, 2017) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Bihar, Patna under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1952').
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an assessment proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952, wherein a liability of Rs. 37,63,966/- was imposed by the authority of the Employees Provident Fund Organization, which was deposited by the petitioner in full. However, subsequently, separate proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, 1952. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Bihar, Patna vide order dated 31st October, 2017 fastened the liability of Rs. 1,47,33,440/- under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. Moreover, a separate liability of Rs. 33,44,311/- was imposed upon the petitioner by the said authority under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952 vide letter no.3373 dated 31st October, 2017 and corrigendum contained in letter no.3672 dated 6th December, 2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 30.00 lacs against the liability imposed under Section 14-B of the Act, 1952. It has also deposited the entire assessed amount under Section 7-Q of the Act, 1952.;