AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, in this case the revenue is asserting that there was determination on actual basis.
He submits, his client has made relevant statements in the writ petition regarding no determination made under section 45-A in Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. He draws attention to paragraph-10 in the counter to demonstrate that personal hearing date was fixed proposing to determine contribution under section 45-A, in respect of 13 employees for period January, 2013 to December, 2016 and January, 2017 to December, 2017. However, it will appear from said paragraph that no determination was made. Instead there was assertion of the demand on actual basis. He submits, actual basis would be based on his client’s documents produced to the authority. By that the demand could not be more than Rs.95,000/- but in excess of Rs.5,00,000/- was the demand. He seeks interference.
Revenue goes unrepresented.
Mr. Mishra is requested to communicate this order on learned advocate, who had appeared on behalf of the revenue.
List for hearing and disposal on 3rd March, 2023.
…………………………………