https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769264 A person shown in company records as General Manager and exercising supervision and control can fall within the definition of principal employer under Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. On the facts, the appellant failed to displace the concurrent findings that he was responsible for remitting employees' deducted contributions, so criminal liability for non-deposit under Section 85(a) was attracted. The Court found no reliable material, such as appointment records or pay slips, to support the contrary designation, and the lesser sentence imposed did not justify interference. The conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769264 A person shown in company records as General Manager and exercising supervision and control can fall within the definition of principal employer under Section 2(17) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. On the facts, the appellant failed to displace the concurrent findings that he was responsible for remitting employees' deducted contributions, so criminal liability for non-deposit under Section 85(a) was attracted. The Court found no reliable material, such as appointment records or pay slips, to support the contrary designation, and the lesser sentence imposed did not justify interference. The conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769264