TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e second respondent so as to enable the petitioner- Bank to register the sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser/third party. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The third respondent had availed various credit facilities from the State Bank of Patiala, which is now merged with the State Bank of India, the petitioner herein. In order to secure the repayment of the loan liability of Rs. 1,11,93,78,688.30 as on 31.08.2018, the corporate guarantor/4th respondent had mortgaged its immovable property situated at Thottipalayam Village in S.F.Nos.596, 598, 592 and 595, Tiruppur Town, 15th Ward, B.S.Sundaram Road, Old T.S.No.1289, 1290, 1291, 1292/1 and 2, 1293/1, New T.S.No.4, 5 and 7, Ward J, an extent of 3.27 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it petition is filed before this Court. 3. A counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, wherein, it is stated as follows: The Income Tax Department sought to recover the tax deducted at source by the third respondent from the payments made to its employees/3rd parties. The Income Tax Department is seeking to recover the amount payable to the employees, but not paid to them by the third respondent by labeling it as tax deducted at source and not paid over the same to the Income Tax Department. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim precedence in the present case. The first respondent has created encumbrance over the attached property on 08.07.2016, which is known to the auction purchaser as well. 4. The learned counsel for the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both sides. 7. It is seen that the third respondent had availed some credit facilities from the State Bank of Patiala, which got merged with the petitioner-Bank. It is not in dispute that the fourth respondent herein is the corporate guarantor, who had mortgaged the subject matter properties to secure the loan/credit facilities advanced by the petitioner to the third respondent. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner-Bank has become the secured creditor and the properties so, mortgaged by the fourth respondent with the first respondent has become the properties covered under the secured credit. 8. It is well settled that the claim of the secured creditor over the property will prevail over all other dues/debts including the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by a competent legislature or other competent authority. In fact, Collector v. Central Bank of India [AIR 1967 SC 1831 : (1967) 3 SCR 855] after referring to various authorities held that the claim of the Government to priority for arrears of income tax dues stems from the English common law doctrine of priority of Crown debts and has been given judicial recognition in British India prior to 1950 and was therefore "law in force" in the territory of India before the Constitution and was continued by Article 372 of the Constitution (AIR pp. 1835-36, para 7 : SCR at pp. 861-62). (iii) An unreported decision made in Special Leave to Appeal No.6483 of 2018 dated 10.08.2018, the Apex Court has observed as follows: "We may also r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed." 9. Therefore,in view of the above settled position of law, even assuming that the properties belonged to the third respondent, still the petitioner-Bank has priority over the said properties as secured creditor than the first respondent. Even, that question does not arise in this case, when admittedly, the properties so attached by the first respondent do not belong to the third respondent and on the other hand, they belong to the fourth respondent. Admittedly, the fourth respondent is not the defaulter before the first respondent. Therefore, the very attachment made by the first respondent of the properties belonging to the fourth respondent for realizing the tax dues from the....