Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

Similar News