https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469857 Section 26E of SARFAESI was treated as prospective and did not govern a State recovery action that had begun in 2014, so the bank could not claim priority under that later provision. Section 35 of the Punjab VAT Act created an express first charge on the defaulter's property for tax dues, and because Section 26E was inapplicable, there was no overriding inconsistency to displace that statutory priority. The State's first charge therefore remained superior to the bank's security interest, and the bank's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 07 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:20:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469857 Section 26E of SARFAESI was treated as prospective and did not govern a State recovery action that had begun in 2014, so the bank could not claim priority under that later provision. Section 35 of the Punjab VAT Act created an express first charge on the defaulter's property for tax dues, and because Section 26E was inapplicable, there was no overriding inconsistency to displace that statutory priority. The State's first charge therefore remained superior to the bank's security interest, and the bank's challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Thu, 07 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469857