2012 (12) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntial creditor. His submission is that in terms of the provisions of 33-C of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Section 53 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, any amount of tax/penalty/interest payable by a dealer or other person under this Act shall be first charge on the property of the dealer or such person and as such he be treated pari pasu with the secured creditors. 2 The claim of the appellant is in the sum of Rs. 1,40,60,422/-; they are sale tax, central tax and entry tax dues payable by the company (in liquidation) for its Morena Unit and Gwalior Unit. The appellant is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Official Liquidator that he be ranked as a preferential creditor and not a secured creditor. Attention....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... into the Companies Act by an amendment of 1985. This Section reads herein as under:- "529A. Overriding preferential payment.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company- (a) workmen's dues; and (b) debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause(c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts." 5 The statutory mandate contained in this provision is clear. It starts with a non-obstante clause. It clearly states that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....im. The judgment of the Apex Court reported as Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala & Others JT 2009 (3) SC 216 does not come to his aid as Section 529-A of the Companies Act was not the scope of discussion in terms of question which has been answered by the Apex Court and as is evident from para 2 of the judgment. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Official Liquidator of Reliance Heat Transfer Pvt. Ltd. (In liquidation) (2004) 12, CompCas 648 which deals with the provisions of Section 38-C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is inapplicable; it is even otherwise not binding on this Court. 10 Provisions of Section 529-A of Companies Act (a Central legislation) have to be override the provisions of Sectio....