Imp. Rulings - EPFO Assessment of PF dues during the Moratorium period.

 Imp. Rulings - EPFO Assessment of PF dues during the Moratorium period.

Index;

1. NCLAT (2026.04.09) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kandivali vs Kailash Shah Resolution Professional of IT Source Technologies Ltd [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 324 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1231 of 2026]

2. NCLAT (2025.09.03) CA Pankaj Shah Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and Anr., [(2025) ibclaw.in 699 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025 & I.A. No. 77, 102 & 103 of 2025]

3. NCLT  Kochi (2025.07.09) Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar  [IA(IBC)/57/KOB/2024 In IBA/240/KOB/2019 In re Raihan Healthcare Private Limited.]

4. NCLAT (2025.01.03) Employees’ Provident Fund Vs. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani (RP) (2025) ibclaw.in 10 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 & 1065 of 2024 & I.A. No.3665 of 2024]

5. NCLAT (2024.09.23) Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.. Vs. Mr. Udayraj Patwardhan (RP) [(2024) ibclaw.in 615 NCLAT, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1183 of 2024 & & I.A. No. 4232 & 4954 of 2024]

6. NCLAT (2024.09.18) SBS Holdings Inc.  Vs. Mohan Lal Jain [(2024) ibclaw.in 587 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 624 of 2024]

----------------------------------------------------------

1). NCLAT (2026.04.09) in  Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Kandivali vs Kailash Shah Resolution Professional of IT Source Technologies Ltd [Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 324 of 2026 & I.A. No. 1231 of 2026] held that;

• This Tribunal has already taken the view in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1062 of 2024 with Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1065 of 2024 decided on 03.01.2025 that after initiation of moratorium no assessment proceedings can be continued by EPFO which is prohibited.

[ Link Synopsis ]

------------------------------------------------

2). NCLAT (2025.09.03) in CA Pankaj Shah Vs. Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) and Anr., [(2025) ibclaw.in 699 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 17 of 2025 & I.A. No. 77, 102 & 103 of 2025] held that;

• We hold that after initiation of moratorium under Section 14, sub-section (1), no assessment proceedings can be continued by the EPFO. If after an order of liquidation is passed, Section 33, sub- section(5), does not prohibit initiation or continuation of assessment proceedings.

• 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.”

[ Link Synopsis ]

----------------------------------------------------

3). NCLT  Kochi (2025.07.09) in  Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs CA Mahalingam Suresh Kumar  [IA(IBC)/57/KOB/2024 In IBA/240/KOB/2019 In re Raihan Healthcare Private Limited.] held that;

• Tribunal held that employer and employee contributions to the Provident Fund, payable to employees via the PF Department, do not form part of the liquidation estate. Such amounts must be remitted to the PF Department and take priority over all other debts. The NCLT further clarified that PF contributions, whether for the CIRP or pre-CIRP period, enjoy priority over all claims. However, the remaining dues (e.g., interest, damages, or non-payable contributions) are treated as unsecured operational debts and are to be distributed in accordance with Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

• Under Section 40 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Liquidator is empowered to assess the revised claim. While the law affords only two options, which is either to accept or reject the claim, the liquidator could not have sent the claim directly to this Adjudicating Authority or suggest the claimant to approach this Adjudicating Authority directly without applying his mind on the fate of so-submitted claim.

• It is well-established law that only claims existing as on the liquidation commencement date are admissible. Such claims must be filed within the time period specified by the Liquidator, as announced publicly after the commencement of liquidation process, or within any extended period granted thereafter.

• Therefore, it is clear that Section 14(1)(a) and Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the institution of any suit or proceedings. Since the proceedings under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are quasi-judicial in nature, they should not have been conducted after the passing of liquidation order. However, in this case, such proceedings were carried out and orders were passed at the liquidation stage. Thus, the proceedings/assessment post the liquidation commencement date will be hit by the provisions of Code, more particularly Section 14(1)(a) and 33(5) of IBC, 2016.

• The subsequent re-assessment for same period under same heads after initiation of moratorium under Sections 14 & 33(5) of IBC, 2016 would not be permissible, apart from legal bar to conduct any such proceedings as discussed supra.

[ Link Synopsis ]

-----------------------------------------------------

4). NCLAT (2025.01.03) in Employees’ Provident Fund Vs. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani (RP) (2025) ibclaw.in 10 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.1062 & 1065 of 2024 & I.A. No.3665 of 2024] held that;

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2020) 13 SCC 208 – Rejendra K. Bhutta vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development and Anr. held that after the imposition of moratorium, a statutory freeze takes place.

• the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rejendra K. Bhutta (supra), it is clear that no proceeding can continue after imposition of moratorium, which has effect of depleting the assets of the CD or creating new liabilities on the CD, since the object or purpose of IBC is to resolve the CD.

• Therefore, this Court held that the authorities can only take steps to determine the tax, interest, fines or any penalty which is due. However, the authority cannot enforce a claim for recovery or levy of interest on the tax due during the period of moratorium. We are of the opinion that the above ratio squarely applies to the interplay between the IBC and the Customs Act in this context.

• From the above discussion, we hold that the Respondent could only initiate assessment or re-assessment of the duties and other levies. They cannot transgress such boundary and proceed to initiate recovery in violation of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC.

• The interim resolution professional, resolution professional or the liquidator, as the case may be, has an obligation to ensure that assessment is legal and he has been provided with sufficient power to question any assessment, if he finds the same to be excessive.

• We hold that after initiation of moratorium under Section 14, sub-section (1), no assessment proceedings can be continued by the EPFO. If after an order of liquidation is passed, Section 33, sub-section(5), does not prohibit initiation or continuation of assessment proceedings.

• 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.

[ Link Synopsis ]

------------------------------------------------------

5). NCLAT (2024.09.23) in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.. Vs. Mr. Udayraj Patwardhan (RP) [(2024) ibclaw.in 615 NCLAT, Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1183 of 2024 & & I.A. No. 4232 & 4954 of 2024] held that; 

• Explanation of Section 14 clearly stipulate that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being inforce, no license, permit, concessions or rights, etc., given by any other authority can not be suspended or terminated on ground of insolvency, subject to condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising or use of continuation of license, permit, concessions or rights, etc.

• We hold that if the Appellant has any recovery towards the Corporate Debtor, he is entitled to initiate suitable recovery proceedings, if allowed by the law and in accordance with the law, which is a different legal right then arising out of filing claims under present petition, but cannot file claims arising after CIRP date.

• We hold that there is a clear law that Resolution Professional can only entertain claims due and filed w.r.t. CIRP commencement date and not due to subsequent event, for which claimant might have other legal remedy.

• It is settled law that the Resolution Professional can collate and verify claims w.r.t. CIRP date and therefore any claims arising subsequent to CIRP date can’t be entertained by Resolution Professional.

[ Link Synopsis ]

------------------------------------------

6). NCLAT (2024.09.18) in SBS Holdings Inc.  Vs. Mohan Lal Jain [(2024) ibclaw.in 587 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 624 of 2024] held that; 

• The statutory scheme delineated by the above provisions, makes it clear that the claims to be filed by the claimants as on the liquidation commencement date. The Liquidation Regulations, does not contemplate consideration of any claim, which arises subsequent to liquidation commencement date.

• Regulation 28 being the only Regulation, which deals with a payment not due on the liquidation commencement date and the distribution has been provided in a manner as contained in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 28, it is clear that no other claim is contemplated to be considered, which is not available on the liquidation commencement date. 

• The statutory scheme delineated by Regulation 12 and Regulation 16, clearly contemplate that a claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date. When a claim has not arisen on the liquidation commencement date, the Regulation do not contemplate admission of such claim.

• Regulation 13, as noted above, which provides for sending a Preliminary Report of the assets and liabilities as on the liquidation commencement date, clearly indicate that all liabilities have to be frozen on the liquidation commencement date and the statutory regulation does not contemplate admission of any claim arisen subsequent to liquidation commencement date.

• We are also of the view that claim could not have been entertained by the Liquidator, which arose subsequent to the liquidation commencement date, no error has been committed by the Liquidator in rejecting the claim on the ground that it was filed much beyond the last date for admission of the claim, which was 15.01.2021 and claim was filed by the Appellant, after more than two years.

[ Link Synopsis ]

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain, Liquidator of Khushi Foods Ltd. - When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.

NCLAT (2024.09.24) in The Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO  Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain, Liquidator of Khushi Foods Ltd.  [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1743 of 2024] held that; 

• When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021. 

Excerpts of the order;

O R D E R (Hybrid Mode) 24.09.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Raghunath, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 

This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.07.2024 by which the Application filed by the Appellant in I.A. No. 739 of 2023 has been dismissed. The Application was filed by the Assistant, Provident Fund Commissioner, seeking direction to set aside the communication dated 22.08.2022 and 11.11.2022 issued by liquidator refusing to accept the claim, the Appellant sought a direction to liquidator to make an additional payment of 16,58,159/-. The said application came to be dismissed. 

The Adjudicating Authority noticed that liquidation commencement date was 09.10.2019, whereas the order under Section 7A was passed on 10.03.2021 and order under Section 7Q was passed on 21.04.2021. Hence, the claim of the Appellant for payment of interest and damages was not accepted.

Let Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the amount for damages and interest pertain to the periods 04.04.2016 to February, 18 i.e. prior to the liquidation commencement date, hence the Appellant was entitled for the interest @ 12%.

It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority ought to have allowed the interest @12% till the liquidation commencement date at least. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in so far as the claim which was filed by the Appellant. Earlier, was admitted which did not contain any amount of interest and damages which were assessed interest only on 21.04.2021. He has referred to the letter issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 23.04.2021.

 We have considered submission of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute in the parties that the liquidation commenced on 09.010.2019. The claim which was filed by the Appellant on the basis of the order dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2021 are subsequent to passing of the said order and the said claim was not accepted and declined by the liquidator, which letters were sought to be challenged. 

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Manish Kumar Bhagat and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 731 where it was held that the claim under Section 14B which was subsequent to the CIRP could not have been accepted. Another judgment relied by the Respondent in DBS Bank India Limited Vs. Kuldeep Verma in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1048 of 2024 where this Tribunal has laid down paragraph 20 are as follows:

•  “20. We have noticed above that statutory scheme provides submission of claim on a liquidation commencement date which is a fixed connotation. When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator. The amount of interest which was retained by the Appellant claiming to be interest in addition to the claim as filed by it in Form D till the date of realization of receipt of the sale, cannot be permitted to be retained by the Appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the order allowing application filed by the Liquidator to hand over the additional amount to the Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that out of Rs. 1.84 Crores, amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs have already been paid.” 

The submission of the Appellant that since the claim was for April 26 to February, 2018 interest liability was their @ 12%, which is statutory interest. There is no dispute that assessment for the interest was done in the year, 2021 much after the liquidation commencement date. The claim under Regulation 12 and 16 of Liquidation Regulation, 2016 had to be filed as on liquidation commencement date. When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021. 

We thus, do not find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority. 

Appeal is dismissed.

-------------------------------------------

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (Liquidator) - Admittedly, the date of Liquidation Order is 30.09.2018, any claims filed on the basis of Assessment subsequent to the date of Liquidation could not have been entertained in the Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor which is the law laid down by this Tribunal in `The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’ (Supra).

 NCLAT (2024.10.17) in Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (Liquidator) [((2024) ibclaw.in 657 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1856 of 2024 & I.A. No. 6821 of 2024] held that

• Admittedly, the date of Liquidation Order is 30.09.2018, any claims filed on the basis of Assessment subsequent to the date of Liquidation could not have been entertained in the Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor which is the law laid down by this Tribunal in `The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’ (Supra).

Excerpts of the Order;

17.10.2024: I.A. No. 6821 of 2024

# 1. This is an Application praying for condonation of 14 days delay in filing of the Appeal.

# 2. Sufficient cause has been shown in Paragraph 2 of the Application.

Delay condoned.

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1856 of 2024

# 1. Heard Counsel for the Appellant as well as Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

# 2. This Appeal has been filed against an Order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Court 2), by which Order the Adjudicating Authority has rejected I.A. No. 753/AHM/2023 filed by the Appellant.

# 3. Liquidation Order was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 30.09.2019. In the Liquidation Proceeding, the Liquidator has admitted the claim of the EPFO, Appellant, however, a revised claim was filed in `Form-C’ dated 07.08.2020 which was not accepted by the Liquidator with regard to which an I.A. was filed which was rejected by the Impugned Order.

# 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that revised claim was based on Assessment under Sections 7Q and 14B of the 1952 Act.

# 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Raghunath appearing for the Respondent submits that `Form-C’ submitted by the Appellant itself indicates that the claim was based on Assessment Orders dated 31.12.2019, 01.02.2020, 01.02.2018 and 13.02.2020. It is submitted that claim with regard to 13.02.2020 Assessment has been rejected by the Liquidator.

# 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent placed reliance on the Judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of `The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’ Vs. `Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain, Liquidator of M/s. Khushi Foods Limited’ in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1743 of 2024. It is submitted that the said Judgment covers the issues raised in the present Appeal.

# 7. We have heard Counsel for the Parties and perused the record.

# 8. Admittedly, the date of Liquidation Order is 30.09.2018, any claims filed on the basis of Assessment subsequent to the date of Liquidation could not have been entertained in the Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor which is the law laid down by this Tribunal in `The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’ (Supra).

# 9. We thus do not find any error in the Order of the Adjudicating Authority rejecting the Application filed by the Appellant.

There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed.

----------------------------------------

Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (Liquidator).- When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.

 NCLAT (2024.09.24) in Assistance Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), EPFO Vs. Chandra Prakash Jain (Liquidator).. [(2024) ibclaw.in 658 NCLAT, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1743 of 2024] held that

• When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.

Excerpts of the Order;

24.09.2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel Mr. Ravi Raghunath, appearing on behalf of the Respondent. This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 23.07.2024 by which the Application filed by the Appellant in I.A. No. 739 of 2023 has been dismissed. The Application was filed by the Assistant, Provident Fund Commissioner, seeking direction to set aside the communication dated 22.08.2022 and 11.11.2022 issued by liquidator refusing to accept the claim, the Appellant sought a direction to liquidator to make an additional payment of 16,58,159/-. The said application came to be dismissed.

The Adjudicating Authority noticed that liquidation commencement date was 09.10.2019, whereas the order under Section 7A was passed on 10.03.2021 and order under Section 7Q was passed on 21.04.2021. Hence, the claim of the Appellant for payment of interest and damages was not accepted.

Let Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the amount for damages and interest pertain to the periods 04.04.2016 to February, 18 i.e. prior to the liquidation commencement date, hence the Appellant was entitled for the interest @ 12%.

It is submitted that Adjudicating Authority ought to have allowed the interest @12% till the liquidation commencement date at least. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that in so far as the claim which was filed by the Appellant. Earlier, was admitted which did not contain any amount of interest and damages which were assessed interest only on 21.04.2021. He has referred to the letter issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 23.04.2021.

We have considered submission of Counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no dispute in the parties that the liquidation commenced on 09.010.2019. The claim which was filed by the Appellant on the basis of the order dated 10.03.2021 and 21.04.2021 are subsequent to passing of the said order and the said claim was not accepted and declined by the liquidator, which letters were sought to be challenged.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on the judgments of this Tribunal in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Manish Kumar Bhagat and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine NCLAT 731 where it was held that the claim under Section 14B which was subsequent to the CIRP could not have been accepted. Another judgment relied by the Respondent in DBS Bank India Limited Vs. Kuldeep Verma in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1048 of 2024 where this Tribunal has laid down paragraph 20 are as follows:

• “20. We have noticed above that statutory scheme provides submission of claim on a liquidation commencement date which is a fixed connotation. When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator. The amount of interest which was retained by the Appellant claiming to be interest in addition to the claim as filed by it in Form D till the date of realization of receipt of the sale, cannot be permitted to be retained by the Appellant and the Adjudicating Authority has rightly passed the order allowing application filed by the Liquidator to hand over the additional amount to the Liquidator. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that out of Rs. 1.84 Crores, amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs have already been paid.”

The submission of the Appellant that since the claim was for April 26 to February, 2018 interest liability was their @ 12%, which is statutory interest. There is no dispute that assessment for the interest was done in the year, 2021 much after the liquidation commencement date. The claim under Regulation 12 and 16 of Liquidation Regulation, 2016 had to be filed as on liquidation commencement date. When the claim has to be filed on the liquidation commencement date any claims subsequent including any on the basis of assessment subsequent to the liquidation commencement date cannot be given any credence by the liquidator and no error was committed by liquidator in not accepting the claim of damages and interest consequent to the assessment paying in the year 2021.

We thus, do not find any error in the order of Adjudicating Authority. Appeal is dismissed.

----------------------------------------

Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. - Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings.

 NCLT Mumbai-1 (2024.07.19) in Central Board of Trustees, EPF Vs. Mr. Bhavesh Rathod, Liquidator. [C.A. 15 of 2024 IN C.P. (IB)4488/MB/2018] held that; 

• Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings. 

Excerpts of the order;

# 1. The present Company Appeal 15 of 2024 is filed in Company Petition CP No. 4488 of 2018 by the Central Board of Trustees, Employees’ Provident Fund through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II (Legal) in terms of Section 42 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 in the matter of Ashapura Intimates Fashion Limited seeking following relief; 

• a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 40 days in filing the present Company Appeal by the Appellant. 

• b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to condone the delay of 670 days in filing the Claim by the Appellant and be pleased to pass an order and direct the Liquidator to admit the claim and pay the amount of Rs. 417102/- towards the provident fund dues under section 7Q and 14B of EPF & MP Act, 1952. 

• c) Any other order that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case. 

# 2. The Corporate Debtor is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The corporate debtor had defaulted in remittance of statutory Provident Fund and allied dues under section 7Q and 14 B to the tune of Rs. 417102/-. The Hon'ble NCLT passed the order of liquidation in respect of the Corporate Debtor on 05.10.2020. The Appellant got notification regarding the Insolvency Resolution Process on 18.07.2022. The Appellant vide letter dated 02.02.2024 submitted its claim before the Liquidator. The Liquidator vide email dated 09.02.2024 replied to the Appellant that the last day to file the claim was 04.11.2020 and requested to make an Appeal for condonation of delay before Hon’ble NCLT. The Appellant, being an organization under the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has to go through various approvals and sanctions from the Higher authorities to file a claim in respect of the Corporate debtor which caused a delay of 670 days in filing a claim against the Corporate debtor. 

# 3. Heard the Counsel and perused the material on record. 

# 4. In the present case, the Liquidation commenced on 5.10.2020 and the order in terms of section 7Q and 14B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 were passed on 29.12.2023 demanding a sum of Rs. 417102/-. The claim before the Liquidator was filed on 02.02.2024, while the last date for submission of claim in the liquidation process was 4.11.2020. The Liquidator rejected the claim vide email dated 09.02.2024. The appeal has been filed on 08.05.2024. Section 42 of the IB Code require the claimant to file an appeal against the rejection of claim within 14 days. The Hon’ble NCLAT in the case of Canara Bank vs. Commercial Tax Department Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 342 NCLAT has held that 

• “The delay in filing the Appeal under Section 42 is clearly condonable while exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.” Accordingly, to meet the end of justice, we consider it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 

# 5. Undisputedly the Orders u/s 7Q and 14B of the EPF Act were passed on 29.12.2023 i.e. after the commencement of liquidation in case of corporate debtor on 4.11.2020. Section 33(5) of the IB Code provides that “Subject to section 52, when a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted by or against the corporate debtor.” In terms of section 38 of the Code, the Liquidator is collect the claims of creditors within 30 days of the liquidation commencement date which is 4.11.2020 in this case. The Hon’ble NCLAT in case of DBS Bank India Ltd. Vs. Kuldeep Verma, Liquidator of Eastern Gases Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 103 NCLAT held that 

• “When a statute provides for liquidation commencement date as a date up to which claims can be filed and proved, no claim thereafter can be entertained by the Liquidator.” 

Admittedly, the order creating the demand against the Corporate Debtor was passed after the commencement of liquidation, we have no hesitation to hold that the claim of applicant can not be admitted in the liquidation proceedings. 

# 6. In view of the above, Appeal 15/2024 is dismissed. 

---------------------------------------------