JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the demand issued by the recovery Officer (respondent No. 2) for the period January, 1980 to May, 1982. 2. Regarding the demand under Section 39(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, (ES. Act for short), it is submitted that Section 39(5) of the Act was inserted by Section 12 of Act 29 of 1989, with effect from October 20, 1989 and therefore, the demand of interest for the period in question i.e. January, 1980 to May, 1982 is without jurisdiction. Mr. S. Das, appearing for the respondents, fairly conceded to this position. 3. Regarding the other demands, petitioners contention is that by letter dated March 16, 1982 (Annexure-1), the Deputy Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Patna, informed the petitioner that the provisions of ESI Act were not applicable to it till a notification extending the applicability of the provisions of the ESI Act to the remaining areas of Deoghar is issued and about which petitioner will be intimated in due course. In reply, petitioner wrote a letter on July 24, 1982 (Annexure-1) saying inter alia that it has not deducted employees contribution prior to June 1, 1982 in view of Annexure- 1. 4. From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it appears that there was uncertainty about the applicability of the Act to the petitioner due to which, petitioner did not deduct employees contribution during the period in question i.e. January, 1980 to May, 1982. By Annexure-E, petitioner was asked to get it registered under the Act. By Annexure-1 dated March 16, 1982, petitioner was informed that the Act is not applicable and its applicability will be informed in due course. However, a number was allotted to the petitioner. By Annexure-1 dated July 24, 1982, petitioner informed inter alia that in view of Annexure-1, it had not deducted employees contribution prior to June 1, 1982. By Annexure-II dated August 4, 1982, petitioner was asked to get it registered and start contribution etc. In the circumstances, the impugned demands are not justified. 5. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned demands raised by Annexures-4 and 5, are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.