https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288818 Secured-creditor priority was analysed against the State's first charge under the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003, in light of section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court applied the principle that a non obstante clause must be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and that later central enactments granting priority to secured creditors prevail over inconsistent state claims where the security interest has already been enforced and the tax dues had not crystallised. On that basis, the bank's secured interest prevailed and the attachment and recovery proceedings were unsustainable. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jul 2020 08:04:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288818 Secured-creditor priority was analysed against the State's first charge under the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003, in light of section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Court applied the principle that a non obstante clause must be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and that later central enactments granting priority to secured creditors prevail over inconsistent state claims where the security interest has already been enforced and the tax dues had not crystallised. On that basis, the bank's secured interest prevailed and the attachment and recovery proceedings were unsustainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288818