RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 230 dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority, Ranchi (respondent-2) passed under Section 7(A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaenous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the EPF Act, 1952) as by reasons of the said assessment, the respondent no.2 has not taken note of the fact that the amount of Rs. 22,88,343/- has already been deposited by the petitioner for the period from May, 2013 to September, 2014 and the same has also been verified by the Enforcement Officer.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 has made a wrong assessment under Section 7(A) of the EPF Act, 1952 for the period from May, 2013 to January, 2015 by creating a demand of Rs. 52,37,937/- against the petitioner without taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 22,88,343/- to the Employees' Provident Funds Organization for the period from May, 2013 to September, 2014 and the same has also been verified by the Enforcement Officer. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondent no.2, the petitioner preferred a review application under Section 7(B) of the EPF Act, 1952 before the said authority, however during the pendency of the said review application, the respondent no. 2 issued letters for realization of the amount to different business concerns with whom the petitioner has the business dealings. In the said process, the respondent no. 2 has already recovered the substantial amount against the demand raised by it in pursuant to the assessment made under Section 7(A) of the EFP Act, 1952. The action of the respondent no. 2 in not deciding the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7(B) of the Act and taking steps for realization of the assessed amount is illegal and arbitrary.
(3.) Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner being the assesse under the EPF Act, 1952 is bound to pay the assessed amount in time and therefore, the respondent no.2 has initiated action for realization of the assessed amount under Section 8(F) of the EPF Act, 1952.;