https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284942 The article explains that Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act, inserted in 2016, were treated as prospective and did not displace the State's earlier first charge and attachment under the Rajasthan VAT Act and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Because the property had already been attached in 2014, the later secured-creditor priority could not nullify the State's statutory charge by implication. The discussion also rejects the purchaser's reliance on lack of knowledge and constructive notice, noting that the purchase was made after attachment and existing revenue proceedings could not be ignored. Relief under the Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable on those facts. en-us Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:01:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284942 The article explains that Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act, inserted in 2016, were treated as prospective and did not displace the State's earlier first charge and attachment under the Rajasthan VAT Act and Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Because the property had already been attached in 2014, the later secured-creditor priority could not nullify the State's statutory charge by implication. The discussion also rejects the purchaser's reliance on lack of knowledge and constructive notice, noting that the purchase was made after attachment and existing revenue proceedings could not be ignored. Relief under the Specific Relief Act and Transfer of Property Act was held inapplicable on those facts. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 05 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284942