Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition Insurer Cannot Evade Liability After Collecting Premium – Registered Ownership Is What the Law Recognizes: Allahabad High Court Insurance Law | It Is Not Enough To Take Premiums – Full Disclosure of Risk Triggers Is a Legal Duty: Andhra Pradesh High Court Adverse Possession Cannot Exceed What Is Actually Possessed: Bombay High Court Loan Recovery Visit Cannot Be Turned Into Prosecution for Outraging Modesty Without Prima Facie Case: Calcutta High Court Woman Alone Bears the Burden – Her Right to Abort Cannot Be Criminalised for Marital Discord: Delhi High Court Quashes Section 312 IPC No Pension Without Sanctioned Post, No Regularization By The Backdoor: Gauhati High Court Rejects Long-Service Claim Of Work-Charged Retirees NIOS Accreditation Not a Licence to Run Unrecognised Schools: Kerala High Court Shuts Down Religious School Operating Without State Permission RFCTLARR Act, 2013 | Section 5 Limitation Act Applies to Section 74 Appeals; High Court Can Condone Delay Beyond Statutory Period: Supreme Court Grant, Refusal or Cancellation of Bail is Purely Interlocutory — No Revision Lies: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenges to Bail Cancellation in ₹7.3 Crore MGNREGA Scam Shareholders Aren’t Owners of Company Property: Karnataka High Court Denies Locus to Challenge KIADB Sub-Lease by Former Investors Illegal Entry Can’t Earn Legal Benefits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bars Counting of Ad-Hoc Service After Reinstatement Forgery and Breach of Trust Are Not the Same - Not Covered by Double Jeopardy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Quashing Strong Suspicion is Enough to Frame Charge, Even in Matrimonial Disputes: Orissa High Court Dismisses Anubhav Mohanty’s Plea for Discharge in Cruelty Case Placard Punishment “He Will Never Misbehave With Any Girl” -  Unjustified: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Impact Was From Behind: P&H High Court Blames Solely Stationary Tractor For Fatal Night Crash Injunction Is Not a Matter of Sentiment but of Possession: Supreme Court Reaffirms That Pleadings and Proof Are the Soul of Civil Suits Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Unmarried Women Have Equal Right to Abortion Like Married Women up to 24 Weeks: Bombay High Court Liberty Cannot Be Held Hostage to an Endless Probe: Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Former Chhattisgarh Excise Minister in Liquor Scam Cases

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