NCLT rightly rejected the claim application filed belatedly at end of liquidation by the appellant (EPFO): NCLAT

Case Details: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Vasudevan Resolution Professional & Liquidator of Titanium Tantalum Products Ltd. - [2022] 145 taxmann.com 147 (NCLAT-Chennai)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • M. Venugopal, Judicial Member & Kanthi Narahari, Technical Member
  • R. Vishnu, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • K. Moorthy, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the NCLT issued an order directing the initiation of liquidation proceedings against the corporate debtor. The Liquidator issued a public announcement as per which the last date of submission of claim was on 14-7-2018.

The Appellant (EPFO) filed its claim before the liquidator in Form-G on 3-2-2021 during the liquidation period, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional on the ground that the appellant submitted its claim belatedly during the end of liquidation.

The appellant filed an application before the NCLT seeking an order directing RP to make provision in an information memorandum and corresponding resolution plan, to condone a delay of 936 days in claiming EPF & MP Act dues but the same was dismissed by the NCLT.

NCLAT Held

On appeal, the NCLAT held that the appellant was not assiduous/meticulous in projecting its claim all through the liquidation period and furnished its claim lately at fag end of the liquidation period.

The Appellate Tribunal held that just because the appellant was a statutory organisation, no ‘indulgence’ or ‘latitude’ would be shown, since the ‘law’ applies to one and all in a level playing field. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the NCLT rejecting condoning the application was free from legal infirmities.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Order of NCLT (Chennai) in IA/442/CHE/2021 in TCP/413/IB/CB/2017, dated 17-12-2021 (para 47) affirmed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. In re [2022] 134 taxmann.com 307/441 ITR 722 (SC) (para 1)
  • Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [Civil Appeal No. 6893 of 2009, dated 8-10-2009] (para 24)
  • Employees Provident Fund Commissioner v. O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2011] 15 taxmann.com 140/110 SCL 520 (SC) (para 26)
  • Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 265 (NCLAT – Chennai) (para 27)
  • Precision Fastener Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation [2018] 97 taxmann.com 493 (NCLT – Mum.) (para 28).