Harry Dhaul Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner — II (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that demand made by the EPFO on the basis of an inspection report made after initiation of moratorium is not enforceable as Section 14(1) of the IBC prohibits the initiation or continuation of assessment during the moratorium period.
Facts- The present two Appeals have been filed against the same impugned dated 03.07.2024 which has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Court-IV, Mumbai Bench). By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the impugned order on the terms of payment of EPFO dues by the Successful Resolution Applicant, cross appeals have been filed by the Successful Resolution Applicant and the Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
Conclusion- This Tribunal in CA Pankaj Shah Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. has held that no claim on the basis of assessment carried during the moratorium period, which is prohibited under Section 14(1) can be pressed in the CIRP.
Held that it is unequivocally clear that demand made by the EPFO on the basis of an inspection report made after initiation of moratorium is not enforceable as Section 14(1) of the IBC prohibits the initiation or continuation of assessment during the moratorium period.
