EPFO Dues from Post-Liquidation Assessments Not Admissible: NCLAT [Read Order]

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi has held that the EPFO dues from the post-liquidation assessment under section 7A of the EPF Act are not admissible. It was viewed that non-admission of the claim of the Appellant in liquidation proceeding shall not preclude it from taking such steps as available in law for realisation of its claim which arose after liquidation commencement date.

The Regional P.F. Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization filed appeal challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad, Court-2 in IA No.114(AHM)2023 filed by the Appellant.

The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor- M/s. Gujarat Foils Limited commenced by the order dated 30.11.2017. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 16.09.2019 directed for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

The Appellant concluded the inquiry under Section 7A of the EPF Act, 1952 on 11.10.2021 determining the Provident Fund dues to the extent of Rs.1,68,76,185/-. On 25.10.2021, Appellant submitted claim in Form-G before the liquidator in total amount of Rs.4,57,13,010/- which included damages and interest under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act. Liquidator vide letter dated 20.11.2021 did not accept the claim principally on the ground of violation of Moratorium.

On instructions of the Liquidator, the Corporate Debtor has challenged the order dated 11.10.2021 passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act before CGIT Ahmedabad in appeal bearing EPF Appeal (CGIT) No.36 of 2021. The property of the Corporate Debtor was sold as a going concern and management of the Corporate Debtor was handed over on 11.01.2022 to Respondent No.2. Appellant filed an IA No.114 of 2023 before the Adjudicating Authority seeking a direction to release the payment of Provident Fund dues in light of Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the IBC read with Section 11 and 17B of the EPF Act.

Notice was issued on the application, both Resolution Professional and the Successful Bidder filed replies. On 03.11.2023, Appeal filed by Corporate Debtor before CGIT Ahmedabad was dismissed for non-prosecution. Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 21.03.2025 rejected IA No.114 of 2023, aggrieved by which order, this Appeal has been filed.

Counsel for the Appellant in support of the Appeal submitted that dues which were determined on 11.10.2021 were dues prior to initiation of the CIRP. It is submitted that under Section 36(4) of the IBC, it is obligation of the Liquidator to pay dues of the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Pension. Counsel for the Appellant in support of his submission relied on various judgment of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal.

It was submitted that the assessment under Section 7A was made subsequent to liquidation commencement date. The claim which can be entertained under the liquidation proceedings are claim which are existing on the date of liquidation commencement. Adjudicating Authority on 04.10.2021 and 25.10.2021 allowed the liquidator to sell the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. E-auction was conducted on 10.12.2021 and Respondent No.2 was declared Successful Bidder on “as is where is basis”, “as is what is basis”, whatever there is basis” and “no recourse” basis.

After conclusion of the liquidation, Liquidator has filed an application for closure of the liquidation which is pending. It is submitted that the last date for filing the claim was 23.10.2019 and claim was filed two years thereafter on 25.10.2021 which was rejected by the liquidator. Appeal under Section 42 of the IBC was also not filed within time.

There is no dispute between the parties that liquidation process of the Corporate Debtor commenced by order dated 30.11.2017 and last date for submitting claims to the liquidator was 23.10.2019. The claim which was filed by the Appellant was on 25.10.2021 i.e. after more than two years. By detailed letter dated 20.11.2021, liquidator communicated to the EPFO Regional Office that claim is inadmissible. Regulation 16 of the IBBI

(Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 provides for submission of claim. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 16 provides that a person shall prove its claim for debt or dues to him, including interest, if any, as on the liquidation commencement date.

Thus, the claim which is required to be filed before the Liquidator is as on the liquidation commencement date. In the present case, there was no claim. The claim filed by the Appellant before the Liquidator was on the basis of an assessment made under Section 7A of the EPF Act on 11.10.2021 and orders under Section 7Q and Section 14B thereafter. Thus, the claim which was filed by the Appellant was a claim subsequent to liquidation commencement date along with the Form G filed by the Appellant dated 25.10.2021. Order passed under Section 7A dated 11.10.2021 and the order passed under Section 7Q and Section 14B thereafter have been relied.

Counsel for the Appellant submits that the proceedings were initiated for assessment under Section 7A with due information to the Liquidator and order passed under Section 7A was required to be admitted in liquidation proceeding.

The Adjudicating Authority however, in the impugned order has observed that the Resolution Professional has to keep track of the Appeal filed by the Corporate Debtor and make necessary arrangements contingent upon the decision of the Appeal. In the application which was filed by the Appellant being IA No.114 of 2023 was an application praying for admission of the claim of the Appellant which was not accepted by the liquidator.

The NCLAT observed that Regulation 16(2) of the IBBI Regulations, 2016, lays down that only those claims can be admitted that were existing at the time of the liquidation commencement date. However, the assessment of the EPFO claim was made after the liquidation; hence, the claims were not in existence at the time of liquidation and are therefore inadmissible.

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) and Barun Mitra (Member-Technical), observed that non-admission of the claim of the Appellant in liquidation proceeding shall not preclude it from taking such steps as available in law for realisation of its claim which arose after liquidation commencement date.

The NCLAT upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority and dismissed the appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates