By this Writ Petition, a proprietary concern engaged in the business of construction for Government contracts, has challenged order dated 15-12-2016, passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the liability assessed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner against the petitioner under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for short, 'the said Act'], has been confirmed.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, initiated an inquiry under Section 7A of the said Act against the petitioner. A report dated 24-07-2012 was submitted by the Enforcement Officer before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, in respect of assessment of liability of the petitioner for the period November, 2004 to March, 2009. It was recorded in the said report that the petitioner had produced balance sheets for the period 2004-2005 and 2008-2009, on the basis of which a chart was prepared in the said report and liability was assessed on the basis of salary expenses, which was recorded as one of the heads in the said chart.

3. On 22-05-2013, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, passed order under Section 7A of the said Act. The said authority recorded that a number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner establishment and finding that no record other than balance sheets were produced by the petitioner, the said authority concluded that on the available documents 25 % of total expenditure was to be taken as basis for levying liability payable by the petitioner establishment for the aforesaid period. The said amount came to Rs. 67,67,178/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, only on the ground that the beneficiaries under the said Act were not identified while passing order under Section 7A of the said Act. On this basis, the order of the Provident Fund Commissioner was set aside and a fresh enquiry was directed.

4. The Enforcement Officer undertook enquiries and submitted report dated 03-04-2014, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, recording that despite repeated opportunities given to the petitioner establishment, no record was being produced and that the petitioner establishment was adopting policy of hide and seek. On this basis, upon taking into consideration the balance sheets available on record, the Enforcement Officer recommended recovery of Rs. 67,67,178/- from the petitioner establishment for the aforesaid period. Thereafter, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed order dated 2006-2014. It was recorded in the said order that despite repeated opportunities granted to the petitioner establishment, till date neither the petitioner establishment produced any record nor appeared during the course of inquiry. On analysis of the material, it was specifically recorded that delay tactics were adopted by the petitioner establishment and that it had failed to produce documents as directed by the Tribunal. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner disposed of the said case by holding that the petitioner establishment was liable to pay amount of Rs. 67,67,178/- towards dues under the said Act for the aforesaid period. The said order was challenged by the petitioner establishment before the Tribunal.

5. By the impugned order dated 15-12-2016, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the liability against the petitioner establishment, recording that the petitioner establishment had failed to produce record and documents during the inquiry under Section 7A of the said Act. Assessment made by the authorities below was found to be reasonable and on this basis the appeal stood dismissed.

6. Mr. A.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner establishment, submitted that the documents had been produced by the petitioner establishme