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 subsequent charge and revenue mutation entry created by the sales tax authorities for tax dues could survive against a prior charge held by the secured creditor and the auction purchaser under the SARFAESI framework.
Analysis: The property had already been sold through proceedings under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the bank's charge was prior in point of time. The Court applied the settled principle that, in the context of secured recovery under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, statutory tax dues cannot override the rights of a secured creditor where the subsequent State charge is inconsistent with the prior secured interest. On that basis, the later sales tax and VAT-related charge entries could not displace the purchaser's title or continue to burden the property.
Conclusion: The subsequent sales tax charge did not survive and the impugned attachment and consequential revenue entries were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner's title was held to prevail over the later State revenue charge, and the property was directed to be from the sales tax encumbrance.
Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent statutory charge for tax dues cannot prevail over a prior secured creditor's charge and sale under the SARFAESI regime, and consequential mutation entries based on such subordinate charge cannot be sustained.