A fresh Section 7A determination was conditioned on deposit of the entire assessed amount.

The petitioner challenged an order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, determining its provident-fund liability.

The assessment followed an earlier writ-court direction permitting the authorities to adjudicate the matter but not raise a demand pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

The petitioner contended that the order was passed without its reply, causing prejudice.

The respondents argued that the order was appealable under Section 7-I and that the statutory appeal period was 60 days, whereas the writ petition was filed in 2017.

The judgment identifies the impugned order as dated 12.10.2015 in the prayer and elsewhere, but paragraph 5 states 12.10.2025.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief from the Section 7A assessment on the ground that it was made without considering a reply.

2. Whether relief should be granted subject to the petitioner depositing the amount assessed, notwithstanding the respondents’ objection that a statutory appeal was available.

Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, empowers the authority to determine questions concerning the applicability of the Act and the amount due from an employer.

Section 7-I provides an appeal from specified orders, including a Section 7A determination; the respondents relied on a 60-day appeal period.

The Court cited no precedent and did not set out a general rule on the interaction between the statutory appeal and writ jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed a reply with supporting documents despite the earlier proceedings, but nevertheless considered partial relief appropriate.

Rather than quash the assessment outright, it conditioned further consideration on the petitioner first depositing the entire amount determined.

Upon compliance, the authority was directed to pass a final or deemed order on the merits and in accordance with law.

The Court did not expressly determine the respondents’ limitation objection under Section 7-I.

The petitioner was directed to deposit the entire assessed amount within six weeks; upon deposit, the first respondent was to pass a final or deemed order on the merits, preferably within four weeks thereafter.

If the petitioner failed to deposit, the respondents could recover the amount in accordance with law as if the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

The proceedings were to be completed within twelve weeks; no costs were awarded.