EPFO Dues From Pre-CIRP Period Cannot Be Claimed Based On Assessment Made During Moratorium: NCLAT New Delhi
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that EPFO dues of the pre-CIRP period cannot be claimed based on assessments made during the imposition of the moratorium. The appeal was filed by the RPFC-II, challenging the NCLT, Ahmedabad order, rejecting the application for setting...
The NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, comprising Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain (Member-Judicial) and Mr. Naresh Salecha (Member-Technical), has held that EPFO dues of the pre-CIRP period cannot be claimed based on assessments made during the imposition of the moratorium.
The appeal was filed by the RPFC-II, challenging the NCLT, Ahmedabad order, rejecting the application for setting aside the communication of the resolution professional, and rejecting the claim.
The corporate debtor was admitted into the CIRP, and Ms. Vineeta Maheshwari was appointed as the interim resolution professional, later on confirmed as the resolution professional.
The appellant started the proceedings under the EPF & MP Act, 1992, and issued a summons to the corporate debtor. On 23.10.2023, the authority passed the order u/s 7Q and 14B for the amount of Rs. 53,338. The assessment was for a period prior to that of the CIRP order. Appellant submitted its claim before the RP, but it was rejected, which led appellant to file an application before the NCLT. However, the application was dismissed.
Contention of the Parties
The appellant didn't contend the fact that the assessment happened post-CIRP order. However, it contended that the assessment was for the period pertaining to the period prior to the CIRP.
For its submission, the appellant relied on the ruling of Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. & Ors., Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 354 of 2019, and Truvisory Insolvency Professionals Pvt. Ltd. (IPE) vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 580 of 2023.
Per contra, the respondent contended that after the admission of the CIRP application, the IRP was appointed and a moratorium under section 14 was declared. Hence, any post-moratorium assessment under sections 7Q and 14B is not permissible. For its submission, the respondent relied on the ruling of CA Pankaj Shah vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025.
Observations of the NCLAT
The bench observed that the fact that the assessment happened post admission of the CIRP is not disputed by the parties. And the only issue that arises is whether the assessment of interest and damages can take place post admission of the CIRP, especially when the moratorium has been declared.
The bench noted that though the assessment was for a period prior to the CIRP order, the same thing has happened only after the CIRP order, and the judgment referred to by the respondent covers the issue completely. In the judgment of CA Pankaj Shah (Supra), the tribunal has ruled that no assessment can be done after the imposition of a moratorium under section 14.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Case Name: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II v. Vineeta Maheshwari, Resolution Professional of Bloom Dekor Ltd.
Case No.: Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1618 of 2024 & I.A. No. 5915 of 2024
Order Date: 08.09.2025