CA Pankaj Shah Vs Employee Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that demand of EPFO raised on the basis of inspection report dated 10.05.2023 and assessment order dated 25.09.2023 which is subsequent to initiation of CIRP on 17.02.2023 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, appeal set aside.
Facts- The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the Corporate Debtor- M/s. Premshree Prime Properties Private Limited commenced vide order dated 17.02.2023, CA Pankaj Shah was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional who has subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional. On 11.05.2023, Employee’s Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) initiated inquiry under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952.
A claim form was filed by EPFO to the Resolution Professional on 26.09.2023 praying for revising their dues as earlier submitted. IA No.346 of 2023 was filed by the Resolution Professional challenging the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by EPFO under Section 7A, 14B & 7Q which application was dismissed as not maintainable. By order dated 23.11.2023, Adjudicating Authority, however, also observed that the Resolution Professional can approach appropriate forum.
Conclusion- Held that after initiation of the CIRP, no assessment can be initiated or continued against the Corporate Debtor so as to pass any pecuniary liability on the Corporate Debtor. In the present case, the EPFO has made demand on the basis of an alleged inspection report dated 10.05.2023 and assessment order dated 25.09.2023 which both were subsequent to initiation of CIRP on 17.02.2023. When no demand can be made on the basis of any inspection or assessment, we do not find any ground to allow the application IA No.409 of 2024 which was filed by EPFO where direction was sought to allow the entire claim of Rs.1,37,17,837/-.
