https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170403 In the absence of a statutory first charge under the governing sales tax law, the State could not claim priority over a bank's prior mortgage and secured creditor rights. The preferential recovery principle in favour of the State operates against ordinary or unsecured creditors and does not displace an existing secured debt. Section 26 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, could not be imported into the repealed regime through the saving clause to create a new retrospective charge. The bank's secured mortgage therefore prevailed over the State's tax dues, and the attachment, sale notice, and auction proceedings were liable to be quashed. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2015 18:08:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170403 In the absence of a statutory first charge under the governing sales tax law, the State could not claim priority over a bank's prior mortgage and secured creditor rights. The preferential recovery principle in favour of the State operates against ordinary or unsecured creditors and does not displace an existing secured debt. Section 26 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003, could not be imported into the repealed regime through the saving clause to create a new retrospective charge. The bank's secured mortgage therefore prevailed over the State's tax dues, and the attachment, sale notice, and auction proceedings were liable to be quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170403