Habeas Corpus Petition Not Maintainable To Trace An Absconding Accused Evading Arrest: Allahabad High Court Section 33(2)(b) ID Act: Industrial Tribunal Cannot Reject Approval For Dismissing Corrupt Employee Over Minor Deficit In One Month's Wages, Holds Bombay High Court Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court Condition Restricting Use Of CENVAT Credit For Duty Payment During Default Period Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court Domestic Incident Report Cannot Supersede Substantive Complaint Under DV Act; Summons Can't Be Refused Solely Due To Omissions In DIR: Delhi High Court Defence Evidence Not Inherently Inferior To Prosecution Evidence, Accused Need Not Prove Alibi To The Hilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 80-Year-Old In POCSO Case Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Restrain Trade Union Strike; Employer Can Approach Industrial Tribunal Under IR Code During Conciliation: Karnataka High Court Army Personnel Exposed To Radiation During Service Entitled To Disability Pension For Leukemia: Kerala High Court Failure To Give Opportunity To Accused To Explain Disproportionate Assets Is Fatal To Prosecution: Madras High Court Acquits Customs Officer Family Court Can Grant Maintenance To Major Unmarried Daughter Even If Application Filed Under Section 125 CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Framing Charges Solely On Oral Testimony Despite Contradictory Medical Evidence Impermissible Without Recorded Reasons: Punjab & Haryana High Court Vehicle Seized For Alleged Cattle Cruelty Can't Be Left To Rot; Prima Facie Ownership Established Via Registration & Insurance Docs: Orissa High Court Labeling Perennial Work As 'Outsourced' To Deny Regularization Is Unconstitutional; State Can't Act Like Private Employer: Telangana High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Merely Required To Establish 'Probable Defence' To Shift Burden Of Proof Onto Complainant: Madras High Court Protests Or Being Branded A 'Traitor' Do Not Establish Threat To Life Ipso Facto: Punjab & Haryana High Court On Security Cover

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