<?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>2002 (6) TMI 596 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190970</link>
    <description>Provident fund dues under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were treated as a statutory first charge on the establishment&#039;s assets and given priority over other debts, notwithstanding contrary provisions in other laws. That later and specific legislative protection for workers&#039; social security dues was held to override the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the corporation&#039;s prior mortgage security. Reliance on transferee-for-value arguments and Income Tax Act provisions was rejected because they did not create a comparable substantive priority. The recovery notices and prohibitory orders for realisation of provident fund dues were therefore valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 596 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190970</link>
      <description>Provident fund dues under the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were treated as a statutory first charge on the establishment&#039;s assets and given priority over other debts, notwithstanding contrary provisions in other laws. That later and specific legislative protection for workers&#039; social security dues was held to override the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 and the corporation&#039;s prior mortgage security. Reliance on transferee-for-value arguments and Income Tax Act provisions was rejected because they did not create a comparable substantive priority. The recovery notices and prohibitory orders for realisation of provident fund dues were therefore valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>