https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414308 The Court held that the petitioner-Bank had the first charge over the properties mortgaged by the respondent under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, superseding the charge recorded by the respondent State Tax Officer under Section 48 of the VAT Act, 2003. The Court set aside the attachment order and the charge recorded by the State Tax Officer, ruling in favor of the Bank. This decision reaffirms the priority of secured creditors in debt recovery, emphasizing the significance of the 2016 amendment to the SARFAESI Act, 2002. en-us Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414308 The Court held that the petitioner-Bank had the first charge over the properties mortgaged by the respondent under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, superseding the charge recorded by the respondent State Tax Officer under Section 48 of the VAT Act, 2003. The Court set aside the attachment order and the charge recorded by the State Tax Officer, ruling in favor of the Bank. This decision reaffirms the priority of secured creditors in debt recovery, emphasizing the significance of the 2016 amendment to the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414308