https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276959 The article explains that, in recovery proceedings, the custody court may determine questions of title and priority under the applicable recovery rules without invoking Section 151 CPC. It further states that the Union of India's tax claim had priority over unsecured competing claims to attached money, because the petitioners' earlier attachment did not create a charge. The discussion also concludes that the doctrine of priority of State debts survived the Constitution under Article 372(1), as part of the pre-Constitution law, and was not displaced by the income-tax recovery machinery or by Article 294. en-us Tue, 21 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:54:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276959 The article explains that, in recovery proceedings, the custody court may determine questions of title and priority under the applicable recovery rules without invoking Section 151 CPC. It further states that the Union of India's tax claim had priority over unsecured competing claims to attached money, because the petitioners' earlier attachment did not create a charge. The discussion also concludes that the doctrine of priority of State debts survived the Constitution under Article 372(1), as part of the pre-Constitution law, and was not displaced by the income-tax recovery machinery or by Article 294. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jun 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276959