Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Shri Prateek Maheshwari, counsel for respondent No.1.

Although the matter was heard finally on 16/05/2024, however, on perusal of the record, it is found that there is some controversy regarding the authority who has passed the impugned order as the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been passed by respondent No.1/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereas respondent No.1 has submitted that it has been passed by the Assessing Officer under Para 26B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952.

In such circumstances, counsel for the parties are directed to apprise this Court as to the actual designation of the authority who has passed the impugned order, and also, under which provisions of law, the Assessing Officer has been appointed to decide the dispute under Para 26B of the Scheme.

Let the matter be listed in the week commencing 01/07/2024.