Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court

30 November 2024 1:06 PM

By: sayum


Gujarat High Court reaffirmed the priority of secured creditors under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding that such creditors' rights supersede the State's claim for VAT dues. The judgment quashed the State's attachment order over a property sold by Central Bank of India under SARFAESI proceedings, thus protecting the bank’s secured interest.

Gujarat High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Central Bank of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., addressing the conflict between a secured creditor’s rights under the SARFAESI Act and the State's claim over unpaid VAT dues. The Court held that under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the bank’s secured charge takes precedence over the State’s tax dues under the VAT Act, thus safeguarding the rights of the auction purchaser.

The petitioner, Central Bank of India, had extended credit facilities to Respondent No. 3, and the property in Gondal, Rajkot District, was mortgaged as security. After the borrower defaulted, the bank classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in 2018 and initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The property was sold in a public auction in May 2023, but the auction purchaser encountered difficulties registering the sale deed due to an attachment and charge recorded by the State for unpaid VAT dues amounting to Rs. 29,30,527 under Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

The petitioner sought relief from the Court to remove the State’s charge and permit the registration of the sale deed.

The core legal question was whether the petitioner bank, a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, had priority over the State’s tax dues. The relevant statutes in question were:

Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002: This provision grants secured creditors priority over all other debts, including taxes owed to the State or Central Government.

Section 48 of the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003: This section establishes a first charge in favor of the State for unpaid VAT dues.

The Court examined the petitioner’s rights as a secured creditor and the non-obstante clause in Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, which provides that after the registration of a security interest, the debts owed to secured creditors have priority over all other debts, including government taxes.

Priority of Secured Creditors under Section 26E: The Court emphasized that Section 26E grants an overriding effect to the secured creditors' debts, meaning that such creditors’ claims must be satisfied before any claims by the State for unpaid taxes, cesses, or other dues. This provision supersedes Section 48 of the VAT Act, which creates a charge in favor of the State for tax arrears.

Non-Obstante Clause: The Court reiterated that the non-obstante clause in Section 26E overrides any conflicting provisions in other laws, including state tax legislation. The Court cited precedents where similar rulings were upheld, including Mahadev Cotton Industries vs. Department of Central Sales Tax and Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India, both affirming the superior status of secured creditors’ claims under the SARFAESI Act.

Right to Auction Sale Proceeds: The Court held that the sale conducted by the bank under SARFAESI was valid and the auction purchaser's rights should not be impeded by the State’s subsequent charge for VAT dues.

The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition and quashed the attachment order and charge recorded by the State under Entry No. 1749 in the revenue records. The Court confirmed that the petitioner bank had a first charge over the property under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, which takes precedence over the State's claim under the VAT Act.

The Court further held that the auction purchaser’s right to register the sale deed should not be hindered by the State’s claim, and the bank's right to recover its secured debts must be upheld. However, the State was granted liberty to pursue recovery of its dues through appropriate legal channels.

The Gujarat High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that secured creditors' rights under the SARFAESI Act take precedence over State claims for tax dues, thereby ensuring the smooth enforcement of security interests. This judgment aligns with prior rulings from both the Supreme Court and other High Courts, further cementing the legal position regarding the priority of secured creditors in the recovery process.

Date of Decision: 24/09/2024

Latest Legal News