<?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>2014 (5) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247105</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 confers an overriding first charge on the dealer&#039;s property for tax, penalty, interest and other sums due, and that charge prevails over a prior mortgage unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Applying that principle, the Court treated the State&#039;s tax-arrears attachment as enforceable against the petitioner bank&#039;s earlier security interest. Section 17-A, which voids transfers or charges made to defraud revenue, was held not to dilute or qualify the priority created by section 16-C, because such a reading would undermine the later amendment and make the first-charge provision ineffective. The challenge to the attachment therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 32 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247105</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 confers an overriding first charge on the dealer&#039;s property for tax, penalty, interest and other sums due, and that charge prevails over a prior mortgage unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Applying that principle, the Court treated the State&#039;s tax-arrears attachment as enforceable against the petitioner bank&#039;s earlier security interest. Section 17-A, which voids transfers or charges made to defraud revenue, was held not to dilute or qualify the priority created by section 16-C, because such a reading would undermine the later amendment and make the first-charge provision ineffective. The challenge to the attachment therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>