<?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>2017 (12) TMI 675 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352406</link>
    <description>A statutory priority given to secured creditors under the amended recovery and securitisation framework prevails over tax recovery claims, including garnishee action under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, where the notice targets secured assets or monies held for the debtor. The later amendment, reinforced by a non obstante clause, was applied to give the secured creditor precedence over Government dues such as taxes, cesses and rates, and this priority was treated as governing pending disputes as well. On that basis, the garnishee notice could not be enforced against the secured creditor bank and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 675 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352406</link>
      <description>A statutory priority given to secured creditors under the amended recovery and securitisation framework prevails over tax recovery claims, including garnishee action under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, where the notice targets secured assets or monies held for the debtor. The later amendment, reinforced by a non obstante clause, was applied to give the secured creditor precedence over Government dues such as taxes, cesses and rates, and this priority was treated as governing pending disputes as well. On that basis, the garnishee notice could not be enforced against the secured creditor bank and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352406</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>