https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165296 The security bond executed in the insolvency proceedings was construed as covering all creditors other than those in the A and B schedules, so the Government was not excluded from its benefit. The Court applied the common law priority of State debts and held that this priority is not inconsistent with Article 14; because the income-tax authorities had already attached the properties, the later private claim could not defeat the State's right to the sale proceeds. Board Standing Order 48 was held inapplicable because income-tax arrears did not create a charge on the land. The Government therefore had priority over the sale proceeds. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:46:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165296 The security bond executed in the insolvency proceedings was construed as covering all creditors other than those in the A and B schedules, so the Government was not excluded from its benefit. The Court applied the common law priority of State debts and held that this priority is not inconsistent with Article 14; because the income-tax authorities had already attached the properties, the later private claim could not defeat the State's right to the sale proceeds. Board Standing Order 48 was held inapplicable because income-tax arrears did not create a charge on the land. The Government therefore had priority over the sale proceeds. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165296