Recovery notice challenge fails where the underlying adjudication order was not appealed against and the filing was time barred.

An appeal directed only against a recovery notice was held not maintainable where the notice expressly referred to the underlying adjudication order confirming the demand, because the challenge was not brought against the proper order. The appeal was also held time barred, as the adjudication order dated 30-6-2000 was challenged only on 14-2-2002 and no basis was shown to overcome the delay. The impugned order was therefore sustained, and the challenge failed on both maintainability and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal against the recovery notice was maintainable, and (ii) whether the appeal was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal against the recovery notice was maintainable.

Analysis: The recovery notice specifically referred to the adjudication order confirming the demand. The appellant did not seek a copy of the adjudication order and instead challenged the recovery notice itself. On these facts, the challenge was not directed against the proper order.

Conclusion: The appeal against the recovery notice was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The adjudication order was passed on 30-6-2000 and the appeal was filed on 14-2-2002. The delay was apparent from the record, and no basis was shown to overcome the time bar.

Conclusion: The appeal was time barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained and the challenge failed on both maintainability and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge directed only against a recovery notice, when the underlying adjudication order is identified and the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as time barred.

---