<?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>2025 (9) TMI 1745 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466426</link>
    <description>A secured creditor with prior CERSAI registration under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act was given priority over a later revenue attachment for sales tax dues, because the security interest was registered before the respondent&#039;s attachment and later CERSAI entry. The court also found that the revenue authorities had not shown compliance with the mandatory proclamation procedure required under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Realization of Land Revenue Rules, so the attachment could not override the secured creditor&#039;s statutory priority. The attachment, lien and related charges were therefore directed to be removed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2026 17:12:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1745 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466426</link>
      <description>A secured creditor with prior CERSAI registration under section 26E of the SARFAESI Act was given priority over a later revenue attachment for sales tax dues, because the security interest was registered before the respondent&#039;s attachment and later CERSAI entry. The court also found that the revenue authorities had not shown compliance with the mandatory proclamation procedure required under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Realization of Land Revenue Rules, so the attachment could not override the secured creditor&#039;s statutory priority. The attachment, lien and related charges were therefore directed to be removed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>