establishment along with the
entire assessed interest. Against the order
of the EPFAT, the petitioner filed
petition.
2.6 The said petition preferred under
Article
sake of brevity. The
orders passed by the respondent authority and the EPFAT
have been passed in consonance with the provisions
Annexure-A until the competent authority
i.e. Ld. CGIT and EPFAT Ahmedabad hears
and decides the appeal and injunction of the
petitioner company
Annexure-A until the competent authority
i.e. Ld. CGIT and EPFAT Ahmedabad hears
and decides the appeal and injunction of the
petitioner company
order dated 3.3.2011 in ATA No.85(5) 2009 by Presiding Officer,
EPFAT.
The
facts of the case are that in the writ petition, petitioners
further order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the
Presiding Officer, EPFAT in ATA No.901(5)(2008), has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a
propriety
received so far. The learned Presiding Officer, Employees Provident
Fund Appellate Tribunal (EPFAT), Delhi has brushed aside this aspect
by saying that
orders dated
28th May 2007 and 9th February 2010 passed by
EPFAT, Delhi in Appeal and Review Application respectively.
2. Mr.
Niral Mehta, learned Advocate
