VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD both sides.
(2.) THIS writ has been filed for quashing Annexure 3 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter the Act), whereby and where under the review petition of the partitioned to review the order as contained in Annexure 1 has been rejected. Annexure 1 has also been sought to be quashed on the ground that this has been passed on erroneous appreciation of the documents of the petitioner particularly the Exhibits E/5 and E/6. The short case of the petitioner is that the petitioner ran a business in the name and style of M/s. Balu Fireclay Mines at Balumath, Palamau through Sri K.C. Garg. According to the petitioner his business came to a closure because of certain Nexal activities going on within area and consequently information thereof had been given to the authorities concerned. Then the authorities under the Act passed the order Annexure 1 and in that proceeding the documents filed by the petitioner as well as the attendance register of the concerned establishment were examined and by Annexure -1 a demand of Rs. 30,324/ -was raised against the petitioner. Thereafter, it transpires that the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7B of the Act and by Annexure 3 that review petition was rejected.
(3.) THE main ground taken by the petitioner for review was that the petitioner was a mining Engineer and a consultant and in that capacity he earned and consequently filed income tax returns. Thoseincome tax returns were also exhibited before the authority concerned who was exercising his power under the Act for purpose of assessment but those documents i.e. Exts. E/5 and E/6 were wrongly construed by the authority concerned as the authority concerned construed those documents to' be income tax returns filed in respect of the establishment concerned and, thus, according to the petitioner that authority committed an error apparent on the face of record by considering these documents in respect of the establishment and not as the document of income tax returns of the petitioner in his individual capacity and, therefore, the assessment was wrongly done. The further case of the petitioner is that though the review petition was filed on this ground but this matter was not discussed in review and the same was rejected by a summary order without answering the objection raised by the petitioner.;