<?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>2021 (9) TMI 267 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411922</link>
    <description>Priority disputes between secured creditors and the Revenue are examined through Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, Section 31B of the RDDB&amp;FI Act, and tax provisions that may void transfers made during pending proceedings. The text states that constitutionally recognised tax dues can override competing claims where transfers occurred during the pendency of tax proceedings, but the decisive questions of timing, pendency, and genuineness of transfers are factual matters requiring evidence. It also states that such disputed facts are not ordinarily resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and must be determined by the competent statutory or quasi-judicial forum. Statutory appeals should be entertained and decided on merits, even if delay is raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2021 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 267 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411922</link>
      <description>Priority disputes between secured creditors and the Revenue are examined through Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, Section 31B of the RDDB&amp;FI Act, and tax provisions that may void transfers made during pending proceedings. The text states that constitutionally recognised tax dues can override competing claims where transfers occurred during the pendency of tax proceedings, but the decisive questions of timing, pendency, and genuineness of transfers are factual matters requiring evidence. It also states that such disputed facts are not ordinarily resolved in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and must be determined by the competent statutory or quasi-judicial forum. Statutory appeals should be entertained and decided on merits, even if delay is raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>