Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Priority of Government Dues and Preferential Payments During Company Liquidation: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the priority of government dues and preferential payments during company liquidation. The judgment, authored by Hon'ble Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, sheds light on the intricate interaction between the Companies Act, 1956 and the Customs Act, 1962, providing crucial insights into the treatment of government dues vis-à-vis other creditors in the event of company liquidation.

The bench's observations emphasized the complexity of reconciling conflicting laws and provisions. Justice Khanna noted, "The interaction between the Companies Act and the Customs Act raised pertinent questions about the precedence of government dues over other creditors, especially during the liquidation of a company. This required a careful analysis of statutory language, relevant case law, and the principles of interpretation."

The judgment examined the meaning of "due and payable" within the context of the statutory provisions, particularly Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act. It delved into the interplay between the Customs Act's provisions and the priority of payment established by the Companies Act. Justice Dhulia remarked, "The interpretation of these provisions required us to address not only the timing of customs dues but also the creation of a first charge on government dues under the Customs Act."

Crucially, the judgment also analyzed the implications of Section 178 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the distribution of dues during company liquidation. The court clarified that the specified amount under Section 178 would be excluded from the distribution pool, thus affecting the hierarchy of payments. Justice Khanna stated, "Section 178's role in safeguarding tax dues during liquidation had to be examined in light of its impact on the priority of payments as established by the Companies Act."

In its conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and directing the distribution of sale proceeds in accordance with Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act. The court clarified that Section 142A of the Customs Act, post-enactment, does not affect overriding preferential creditors governed by Section 529A. The judgment ended by emphasizing that no costs would be awarded.

The decision resonates with a number of referred cases, including Dytron (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, Punjab National Bank v. Union of India and Others, Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Imperial Chit Funds (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, and Commission of Customs, Calcutta and Another v. Biecco Lawrie Ltd.

Date of Decision: August 18, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA vs SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS       

Latest Legal News