https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784774 Once CIRP commenced and moratorium under s.14 IBC operated, EPFO could not initiate or continue assessment proceedings under ss.7A, 7Q and 14B EPF Act to fasten pecuniary liability on the corporate debtor; applying NCLAT precedent, such proceedings during moratorium were without jurisdiction, hence the resulting determination and demands were unsustainable. Accordingly, post-approval notices/summons seeking recovery of additional PF dues, interest and damages based on moratorium-period assessment, especially where no corresponding claim was lodged in CIRP, could not be enforced against the corporate debtor or the SRA, and the SRA's appeal (to that extent) was allowed. EPFO's cross-appeal seeking priority for such claims was dismissed. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:31:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784774 Once CIRP commenced and moratorium under s.14 IBC operated, EPFO could not initiate or continue assessment proceedings under ss.7A, 7Q and 14B EPF Act to fasten pecuniary liability on the corporate debtor; applying NCLAT precedent, such proceedings during moratorium were without jurisdiction, hence the resulting determination and demands were unsustainable. Accordingly, post-approval notices/summons seeking recovery of additional PF dues, interest and damages based on moratorium-period assessment, especially where no corresponding claim was lodged in CIRP, could not be enforced against the corporate debtor or the SRA, and the SRA's appeal (to that extent) was allowed. EPFO's cross-appeal seeking priority for such claims was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784774