<?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>2018 (12) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371377</link>
    <description>Sales tax dues were treated as having priority over a secured creditor&#039;s claim because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 creates a statutory charge under Section 24 over the defaulter&#039;s property. The Court applied the settled rule that priority between government dues and secured interests depends on whether the taxing statute itself creates such a charge, and held that a statutory charge prevails over mortgage rights. It further noted that the non obstante provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the SARFAESI Act could be harmoniously applied, so there was no conflict displacing the statutory charge. Recovery against the auction purchasers was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 08:56:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371377</link>
      <description>Sales tax dues were treated as having priority over a secured creditor&#039;s claim because the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 creates a statutory charge under Section 24 over the defaulter&#039;s property. The Court applied the settled rule that priority between government dues and secured interests depends on whether the taxing statute itself creates such a charge, and held that a statutory charge prevails over mortgage rights. It further noted that the non obstante provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the SARFAESI Act could be harmoniously applied, so there was no conflict displacing the statutory charge. Recovery against the auction purchasers was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>