https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791559 In liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a State VAT charge did not by itself confer secured-creditor status or displace the Code's waterfall mechanism. The Tribunal held that the State tax department could not rank with secured financial creditors merely because local VAT law created a first charge, since Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The liquidation proceeds therefore had to be distributed under Section 53 in favour of the secured financial creditor that had relinquished its security interest, and the withheld sale proceeds could not be diverted to the State claim. en-us Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791559 In liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a State VAT charge did not by itself confer secured-creditor status or displace the Code's waterfall mechanism. The Tribunal held that the State tax department could not rank with secured financial creditors merely because local VAT law created a first charge, since Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws. The liquidation proceeds therefore had to be distributed under Section 53 in favour of the secured financial creditor that had relinquished its security interest, and the withheld sale proceeds could not be diverted to the State claim. Case-Laws IBC Mon, 11 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791559