( 1 ) MR. Tarun Agrawal, learned Advocate has while supporting the writ petition assailed the impugned order contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition on the ground that the same is not an assessment order under Section 45-A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Even if for argument sake the impugned order is said to be an assessment order in that event it was passed in contradiction to the proviso to Section 45-A namely without any opportunity of being heard, therefore, the same is invalid. He contends further that no demand could be made in respect of a period of five years prior to the date of the claim as provided in the proviso to Sub-section (1-A) of Section 77 of the Act, therefore, in the present case the claim having been made in the year 1986 for the period between 1971 to 1983 could not be sustained so far as period prior to 1981 which is beyond five years of 1986. His other contention is that respondents did not take into consideration the reply given by him on the basis of show cause notice which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition issued to them on September 18, 1986, therefore, the impugned order suffers fr