Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a garnishee notice issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be enforced against a secured creditor bank in view of the priority accorded to secured creditors under the amended recovery and securitisation laws.
Analysis: The secured creditor's contention was examined in the light of the statutory amendments introducing priority for secured debts. The governing principle applied was that the rights of a secured creditor to realise secured debts by sale of assets over which security interest is created prevail over other debts and Government dues. The Court followed the Full Bench view that the later amendment containing a non obstante clause gives secured creditors precedence over revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Government, and that this priority governs pending disputes as well. On that basis, the Department's garnishee notice could not override the secured creditor's statutory priority.
Conclusion: The garnishee notice was held unenforceable against the petitioner bank and the challenge succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice was set aside on the footing that the secured creditor's priority overrides the revenue recovery claim.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory priority conferred on secured creditors by a later amendment with a non obstante clause prevails over tax recovery action, including a garnishee notice, against secured assets or monies held for the secured debtor.