<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (2) TMI 364 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109367</link>
    <description>Statutory sales tax and entry tax dues backed by charge provisions were treated as secured debts because the relevant tax statutes created a charge, or paramount charge, on company property by operation of law. That security brought the State within the concept of a secured creditor under the insolvency framework applied through section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, and section 529A did not displace that status. The secured portion of those dues was therefore entitled to rank pari passu with workmen&#039;s dues and other secured creditors. The contrary contention that the State was only an unsecured creditor, or that assets outside the taxing State defeated the claim, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 364 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109367</link>
      <description>Statutory sales tax and entry tax dues backed by charge provisions were treated as secured debts because the relevant tax statutes created a charge, or paramount charge, on company property by operation of law. That security brought the State within the concept of a secured creditor under the insolvency framework applied through section 529 of the Companies Act, 1956, and section 529A did not displace that status. The secured portion of those dues was therefore entitled to rank pari passu with workmen&#039;s dues and other secured creditors. The contrary contention that the State was only an unsecured creditor, or that assets outside the taxing State defeated the claim, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>