Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, delivered a consolidated order addressing two separate applications filed by statutory authorities seeking admission of enhanced claims in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Vikas WSP Limited.

IA(I.B.C.)/1470(CH)2025 - EPFO Application:

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Resolution Professional Sh. Darshan Singh Anand. The EPFO sought directions to admit its revised claim of ₹22,30,79,084/- after its initial claim of ₹9,28,86,993/- had been fully admitted pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 23.01.2023. The enhanced claim was based on assessment orders dated 04.04.2024 (₹6,19,49,386), 20.06.2024 (₹3,03,05,535 interest), 04.07.2024 (₹11,20,937), and 27.08.2024 (₹5,70,26,483 damages) issued during the moratorium period.

IA(I.B.C.)/1870(CH)2025 - Income Tax Application:

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar, filed an application under Section 60(5) seeking directions to admit an updated claim of ₹268,73,44,328/-, enhancing its originally admitted claim of ₹192.55 crores by ₹76.17 crores. The enhancement was based on reassessment orders for Assessment Years 2013-14 (₹11,75,52,978), 2018-19 (additional ₹61,94,90,141), and 2020-21 (₹2,47,50,790) passed during the moratorium period.

Both applications were opposed by the Resolution Professional on grounds of excessive delay (826 days for EPFO and 1308 days for Income Tax from CIRP commencement date) and violation of the IBC's timeline requirements. The Resolution Plan had been approved by the Committee of Creditors on 25.08.2022 and was pending approval before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal analyzed the legal position, acknowledging the protected status of provident fund dues under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of IBC and the distinction between assessment and recovery proceedings established in Sundaresh Bhatt vs. CBIC. However, the Tribunal emphasized the principles of certainty and finality in insolvency resolution, citing Supreme Court judgments in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and RPS Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr., which prohibit entertaining claims after CoC approval of resolution plans.

Final Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed both applications, upholding the Resolution Professional's rejection of the belated enhanced claims. The Court held that while statutory authorities may assess dues during moratorium, admission of claims must comply with IBC timelines and procedures. Entertaining claims filed 826-1308 days after CIRP commencement and nearly three years after CoC approval would unsettle the commercial wisdom exercised by the Committee of Creditors and defeat the objective of time-bound resolution under IBC.

Topics: Insolvency Claim Timelines, Government Dues in CIRP, Resolution Plan Finality