<?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 (12) TMI 1365 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191364</link>
    <description>Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as creating a statutory first charge on the dealer&#039;s property, so sales tax arrears had priority over a secured creditor enforcing security under the SARFAESI framework. The court reasoned that the non obstante clauses in the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act did not, by themselves, extinguish a first charge created by State sales tax law. It also held that bona fide auction purchasers who bought the property for value without notice of the tax charge, and after sale certificate and possession had been delivered, could not be proceeded against for the borrower&#039;s arrears. The impugned auction notice was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1365 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191364</link>
      <description>Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as creating a statutory first charge on the dealer&#039;s property, so sales tax arrears had priority over a secured creditor enforcing security under the SARFAESI framework. The court reasoned that the non obstante clauses in the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act did not, by themselves, extinguish a first charge created by State sales tax law. It also held that bona fide auction purchasers who bought the property for value without notice of the tax charge, and after sale certificate and possession had been delivered, could not be proceeded against for the borrower&#039;s arrears. The impugned auction notice was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>