Deferred tax default, interest recovery, and mortgage attachment principles under VAT and secured creditor law clarified.

Under the Andhra Pradesh VAT scheme, default in payment of deferred tax instalments causes the deferment benefit to become infructuous and restores the unpaid amount to the character of statutory dues, making interest recoverable under the Act's recovery machinery. The article also explains that treating the deferred amount as a loan does not prevent recovery once default occurs, because the statutory deeming fiction falls away and liability to interest under the Act remains. It further states that a prior mortgage in favour of a bank does not by itself bar attachment of the property, since attachment is distinct from priority in distribution under secured creditor rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest payable on instalments remaining unpaid under a tax deferment scheme could be recovered under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. (ii) Whether the deferred payment arrangement, treated as a loan, excluded recovery of interest under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. (iii) Whether prior mortgage in favour of the bank barred attachment of the property in view of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether interest payable on instalments remaining unpaid under a tax deferment scheme could be recovered under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 25 permits recovery as arrears of land revenue of tax assessed, penalty levied, interest payable under the Act, and any deferred tax treated as a loan together with instalments. Read with Section 69(3) and Rule 24(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, default in instalment payment renders the deferred payment arrangement infructuous and restores the unpaid amount to the character of tax. Section 22(2) then fastens liability to pay interest on any tax, penalty, or other amount due under the Act. On that scheme, interest on unpaid deferment instalments falls within the recovery machinery of Section 25.

Conclusion: The recovery of interest under Section 25 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the deferred payment arrangement, treated as a loan, excluded recovery of interest under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The statutory deferment is not a purely contractual arrangement divorced from the Act. The power to grant deferment flows from the statute and rules, and on default the benefit becomes infructuous by operation of Rule 24(5)(b). The deeming fiction treating the amount as a loan disappears upon default, and the unpaid amount reverts to a statutory dues position attracting interest under Section 22(2). The character of the original deferment arrangement therefore did not defeat recovery under Section 25.

Conclusion: The objection based on the loan character of the deferment scheme was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether prior mortgage in favour of the bank barred attachment of the property in view of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 26E accords priority to secured creditors in the event of competing claims, but it does not prohibit attachment of property already mortgaged. Attachment is distinct from priority of distribution. A property may be attached even if mortgaged, and the bank's claim would rank according to law at the stage of sale proceeds. The existence of a mortgage therefore did not invalidate the attachment order.

Conclusion: The challenge based on prior mortgage and creditor priority failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme supported recovery of interest on deferred tax instalments and did not bar attachment of the mortgaged property, so the writ petition failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where deferment of tax becomes infructuous on default under the governing statute and rules, the unpaid amount is recoverable as a statutory dues together with interest, and attachment of mortgaged property is not barred merely because a secured creditor may have priority in distribution.

---