Secured creditor priority overrides State VAT first charge after the 2016 statutory amendments.

Prior to the 2016 amendments, the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts Act did not confer priority on banks over State tax dues. After insertion of Section 31B in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and Section 26E in the SARFAESI Act, secured creditors were given priority over other debts and Government dues, including taxes and cesses. The State's first-charge provision under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was held to yield to these Central enactments, which operate with overriding effect. The secured creditor's priority over the State's VAT claim was recognised, and the first-charge notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the secured creditor's claim has priority over the State's first charge for VAT dues on the secured assets.

Analysis: The Court held that prior to the 2016 amendments, the position under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts Act did not confer priority on banks over State tax dues. After insertion of Section 31B in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and Section 26E in the SARFAESI Act, the statutory scheme was altered to give secured creditors priority over all other debts and Government dues, including taxes and cesses. The State's first-charge provision under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was held to yield to these Central enactments, which operate with overriding effect.

Conclusion: The secured creditor has priority over the State's VAT claim, and the State cannot assert first charge over the secured assets.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice claiming first charge for VAT dues was quashed, and the petitioners' right to realise the secured debt from the secured assets was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Central enactments confer priority on secured creditors, a State tax first-charge provision must give way to that statutory priority.

---