https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394780 Later special statutes with overriding non obstante clauses gave the secured creditor priority over competing governmental claims. The Telangana HC held that Sections 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevailed over recovery machinery under Section 87 and first-charge provisions under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1994, so the Service Tax notice could not be sustained. It also held that provident fund dues under Section 11 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 could not defeat the bank's secured claim. The writ petition succeeded, the recovery notice was quashed, and the bank was entitled to appropriate the refund towards the borrower's dues. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Oct 2020 17:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394780 Later special statutes with overriding non obstante clauses gave the secured creditor priority over competing governmental claims. The Telangana HC held that Sections 31-B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and 26-E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevailed over recovery machinery under Section 87 and first-charge provisions under Section 88 of the Finance Act, 1994, so the Service Tax notice could not be sustained. It also held that provident fund dues under Section 11 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 could not defeat the bank's secured claim. The writ petition succeeded, the recovery notice was quashed, and the bank was entitled to appropriate the refund towards the borrower's dues. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 21 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394780