Uttarakhand High Court
Lotus Beauty Care Products Pvt vs The Employees Provident Fund on 11 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.555 of 2026
Lotus Beauty Care Products Pvt.
Ltd. and others ............Petitioners
Vs.
The Employees Provident Fund
Organization and others ..........Respondents
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Pullak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Ravi Sehgal, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the show- cause notice dated 24.02.2026 and order dated 18.02.2026 issued by respondent no.3 (annexure no.1 (colly); as well as recovery notice dated 03.03.2022 issued by respondent no.3 (annexure no.7) issued pursuant to the order dated 02.01.2019, passed under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
4. Instead of challenging the main order dated 02.01.2019 by filing a statutory appeal, the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹5,50,663/- before respondent no.3- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II.
5. Since rest of the amount has not been paid by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 02.01.2019, the show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner dated 24.02.2026 and 18.02.2026 and subsequently a recovery notice dated 03.03.2022 was issued by respondent no.3 for recovery of the balance outstanding amount of ₹10,13,268/-
2from the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court against the show-cause notice as well as recovery notice dated 03.03.2022.
6. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that without challenging the main order dated 02.01.2019 by which the liability was fastened upon the petitioner the subsequent order which has been issued pursuant to the earlier order cannot be challenged before this Court by filing the present writ petition.
7. It is further submitted that until and unless the order dated 02.01.2019 is in existence, no interference can be done by this Court.
8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
9. The main order has not been challenged even in this writ petition.
10. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.03.2026 SK