TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the parties should be relegated to the statutory remedy under section 33(2) of the VAT Act, 2002 for adjudication of their rival claims over the secured property and the commercial tax dues, and whether the impugned communication should be kept in abeyance pending such decision.
Analysis: The controversy arose from competing claims of the bank, the auction purchaser, and the commercial tax authority over the secured asset. The earlier round of litigation had already left the parties to work out their remedies before the Commercial Tax Authority under section 33(2) of the VAT Act, 2002, which permits foreclosure of the State's first charge subject to the statutory conditions. Since the impugned communication lost its efficacy after deletion of its operative clauses and the dispute had remained unresolved for a long period, the parties were directed to place all objections and claims before the competent authority. The petitioner was also given liberty to pursue SARFAESI remedies, if advised.
Conclusion: The parties were directed to file applications under section 33(2) of the VAT Act, 2002 before the Commercial Tax Authority, which was to decide them within the stipulated time, and the impugned communication was kept in abeyance till then.
TaxTMI 
