EPFO assessment proceedings and claims initiated during Section 14 moratorium are legally non-est and unenforceable.

The Corporate Debtor (CD), Vas Data Services Pvt. Ltd., was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 09.04.2019, triggering a moratorium.

The Respondent (EPFO) received notice of insolvency on 25.06.2019 but failed to file a claim within the prescribed timeline.

On 06.08.2020, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved a resolution plan with 100% vote share, and the Adjudicating Authority reserved its order on approval on 25.05.2021.

Only on 14.01.2022 did EPFO submit an unsigned claim, which the Resolution Professional (RP) rejected.

Despite the moratorium, EPFO finalized assessment proceedings on 21.11.2023, demanding ₹1,78,18,960/-, and filed an application (I.A. 470/2024) before the NCLT 1,757 days after the CIRP commenced.

The NCLT allowed the claim and passed adverse remarks against the RP for non-disclosure.

The RP and CoC appealed the decision.

The court primarily applied Section 14(1) of the IBC, which imposes a "statutory freeze" on all proceedings against the CD to preserve its assets.

It relied on *EPFO v. Jaykumar Pesumal Arlani*, which held that while assessment is permissible during liquidation under Section 33(5), it is strictly prohibited during the CIRP moratorium under Section 14(1).

The court also applied the "Hydra-headed monster" doctrine from *M/s RP Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar*, establishing that new or undecided claims cannot be entertained once a resolution plan is approved by the CoC, as the IBC is a time-bound process.

Furthermore, Section 238 of the IBC was invoked to affirm the Code’s overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in the EPF Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the assessment order dated 21.11.2023 was void as it was passed during the subsistence of the moratorium, rendering the resulting claim unenforceable.

Distinguishing previous precedents like the *Jet Aircraft* case, the Tribunal noted that those rulings applied to "liquidation estate" assets, whereas the present case was still in the CIRP stage where Section 14(1) applies with full rigour.

Regarding the delay, the Tribunal found that the EPFO was grossly negligent, attempting to foist a claim nearly five years late after the CoC had already approved the resolution plan.

Finally, the Tribunal exonerated the RP from charges of professional misconduct, noting that the RP is dependent on information provided by the suspended management; since neither the management nor the EPFO provided details of the pending enquiry before the plan's approval, the RP could not be held in breach of Regulation 36(2)(h).

It held that assessment proceedings continued by the EPFO during the moratorium are non-est in law and such belated claims cannot be entertained after CoC approval of a resolution plan.

The Tribunal further ordered the expunction of adverse remarks made by the Adjudicating Authority against the RP regarding his conduct in rejecting the claims.