https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159932 Amendments to section 24(2) and section 26(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 were analysed as provisions giving the State's tax dues priority and creating a statutory charge on dealer property. The challenge based on conflict with an earlier mortgage, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and absence of presidential assent under Article 254(2) failed because tax recovery legislation was treated as distinct from transfer of property law and no unconstitutional repugnancy was found. The distinction between a mortgage and a charge was applied, and a charge arising by operation of law was held capable of prevailing over an existing mortgage. Section 26(6) was also sustained as a garnishee-type recovery mechanism. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Dec 2013 16:45:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159932 Amendments to section 24(2) and section 26(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 were analysed as provisions giving the State's tax dues priority and creating a statutory charge on dealer property. The challenge based on conflict with an earlier mortgage, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and absence of presidential assent under Article 254(2) failed because tax recovery legislation was treated as distinct from transfer of property law and no unconstitutional repugnancy was found. The distinction between a mortgage and a charge was applied, and a charge arising by operation of law was held capable of prevailing over an existing mortgage. Section 26(6) was also sustained as a garnishee-type recovery mechanism. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159932