<?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>2010 (8) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164178</link>
    <description>A secured creditor&#039;s mortgage interest under the SARFAESI framework takes priority over State tax arrears unless a statute creates an express first charge. Applying that principle, the Madras High Court held that the tax department could not claim precedence over the bank&#039;s secured debt against the mortgaged property, so the auction notice for recovery of tax dues could not stand. Earlier decisions supporting secured creditor priority were followed, and the later dismissal of related special leave petitions did not change the legal position. The writ petition therefore succeeded and the revenue&#039;s attempt to proceed against the property was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 823 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164178</link>
      <description>A secured creditor&#039;s mortgage interest under the SARFAESI framework takes priority over State tax arrears unless a statute creates an express first charge. Applying that principle, the Madras High Court held that the tax department could not claim precedence over the bank&#039;s secured debt against the mortgaged property, so the auction notice for recovery of tax dues could not stand. Earlier decisions supporting secured creditor priority were followed, and the later dismissal of related special leave petitions did not change the legal position. The writ petition therefore succeeded and the revenue&#039;s attempt to proceed against the property was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>