Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The court held that the charge created by the bank u/s 26E of the SARFAESI Act would take precedence over the charge created by the respondent u/s 48 of the VAT Act. Relying on a previous judgment, the court ruled that the charge for VAT dues has no legal efficacy in view of the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act. As the bank had created the charge prior in time, the subsequent charge created by the respondent in 2019 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the respondent was directed to remove the charge over the property, and the mutation entry in the Revenue Record was ordered to be deleted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The court held that the charge created by the bank u/s 26E of the SARFAESI Act would take precedence over the charge created by the respondent u/s 48 of the VAT Act. Relying on a previous judgment, the court ruled that the charge for VAT dues has no legal efficacy in view of the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act. As the bank had created the charge prior in time, the subsequent charge created by the respondent in 2019 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the respondent was directed to remove the charge over the property, and the mutation entry in the Revenue Record was ordered to be deleted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
