Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Secured Creditors Now Take First Seat: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Bank Has Priority Over VAT Dues Under Section 31B of RDB Act

24 May 2025 9:21 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“With the 2016 amendment, there is no ambiguity—secured creditors rank above government dues including taxes and cesses”, In a significant decision reaffirming the statutory primacy of secured creditors in debt recovery proceedings, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that tax recovery actions by State authorities under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 cannot override the priority rights of secured creditors, once such rights are recognized under Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati ruled unequivocally:

“There is a specific provision providing for priority in favour of secured creditors to realize the secured debts… we have no hesitation to hold that the Bank’s right would have priority over the arrears sought to be recovered by the State under the A.P. VAT Act.”

Bank Loan Secured by Mortgage Over Properties—Later Attached by Commercial Tax Department

The petitioner, Central Bank of India, had granted loans to M/s Sri Rajarajeswari Raw and Boiled Rice Mill and its partners in 2014. Following default, the Bank obtained a recovery certificate for ₹79.74 crore from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Hyderabad, on 6 September 2022.

When the Bank initiated recovery proceedings and attached the mortgaged properties, it discovered that the Commercial Tax Officer had separately initiated proceedings to recover VAT dues of ₹15.02 lakh for 2015–16 and ₹13.91 lakh for 2016–17, and had begun the process of selling the same secured assets through an order dated 2 April 2024.

State Relied on VAT Act’s First Charge Clause—Court Said RDB Act Now Overrides It

The State argued that Section 26 of the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 gave it a “first charge” on a dealer’s property for tax dues. However, the Court contrasted this with Section 31B of the RDB Act, inserted in 2016, which gives statutory priority to secured creditors:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors… shall have priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates.”

The Court also invoked Section 34 of the RDB Act, which grants the Act an overriding effect over other laws unless specifically excluded.

“The provisions of the RDB Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law… including laws claiming first charge.”

Landmark Supreme Court Precedent Acknowledged, but Distinguished After 2016 Amendment

The State referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala (2009) 4 SCC 94, where it was held that sales tax laws creating a first charge were not overridden by the DRT Act or SARFAESI Act, as these Acts did not then create a corresponding statutory charge in favour of banks.

But the High Court pointed out that the 2009 ruling predated the introduction of Section 31B:

“It is not out of place here to mention that at the time when the judgment was rendered… Section 31-B was nowhere in existence… which was incorporated only by Act No.44 of 2016.”

“The legal position now stands altered… There is no doubt that Section 31B places the rights of secured creditors above all other dues, including taxes.”

Bank's Priority Upheld, Tax Recovery Proceedings Quashed

Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that the Bank’s right to sell the secured asset must prevail over the VAT Department’s attempts to sell the same property to recover tax dues:

“The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”

This judgment marks a clear enforcement of the 2016 legislative intent behind Section 31B of the RDB Act—to elevate secured creditors above tax departments in the waterfall of recovery priorities. It also clarifies the current legal position in the post-Central Bank of India (2009) era, ensuring that secured financial institutions are not thwarted by State revenue claims once recovery processes are underway.

“After the 2016 amendment, there is no ambiguity. Tax departments cannot defeat a bank’s claim over a mortgaged asset merely by invoking first charge under VAT law.”

Date of Decson: 21 May 2025

Latest Legal News