AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated April 30, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 3.
By the order dated May 2, 2003 as well as vide order dated April 30, 2004 demand has been made to the extent of Rs. 4,01,818/-which was levied on the petitioner for belated payment of contribution towards Employees Provident Fund and E.D.L.T. Admittedly against the order passed u/s 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appeal lies before the Tribunal u/s 7(1) of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. I have been informed that no Presiding Officer has been appointed in the Tribunal. The recovery proceedings shall, therefore, remain in abeyance.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed on the around of alternative remedy. No order as to costs.