9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 276 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPreferential Creditor vs Secured Creditor - The claim of the appellant is in the sum of 1, 40, 60, 422/-; they are sale tax central tax and entry tax dues payable by the company (in liquidation) for its Morena Unit and Gwalior Unit. The appellant is aggrieved by the finding returned by the Official Liquidator that he be ranked as a preferential creditor and not a secured creditor. - held that - Provisions of Section 529-A of Companies Act (a Central legislation) have to be override the provisions of Sec 53 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act of 1994 (a State legislation) - tax liability will be subject to the provisions of Sec 530 of the Companies Act subject to the provisions of Section 529-A of the said Act. There appears to be no conflict between the State Act and the Central Act - even if there is a conflict between a State legislation and a Central legislation the Central legislation must prevail - Appeal has no merit - Dismissed.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 regarding the ranking of a creditor in a liquidation scenario. 2. Application of Section 530 of the Companies Act in determining priority of dues in the winding up of a company. 3. Conflict resolution between State legislation (M.P. Commercial Tax Act) and Central legislation (Companies Act) in the context of tax liabilities in insolvency proceedings. Issue 1: The appellant claimed preferential creditor status based on tax dues under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the liability of tax is a first charge on the property of the dealer or person, placing them on par with secured creditors. However, the Official Liquidator ranked the appellant as a preferential creditor, not a secured creditor. The appellant contended that the repealed Acts have been replaced by the M.P. Vat Act of 2002, emphasizing Section 33, which no longer includes the provision subject to Section 530 of the Companies Act. The appellant challenged the Official Liquidator's decision, asserting that the liability of tax should have precedence over other claims. Issue 2: The judgment highlighted Section 529-A of the Companies Act, introduced by an amendment in 1985, which mandates the priority payment of workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors in the winding up of a company. This provision, starting with a non-obstante clause, emphasizes the priority of such dues over all other debts. The appellant's tax dues fall under Section 53 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, subject to Section 530 of the Companies Act, which deals with dues to Central or State Governments or local authorities. Section 530 (1)(a) specifies the priority payment of revenue taxes due from the company, subject to the provisions of Section 529-A, ensuring payment in priority to all other debts. Issue 3: The judgment resolved the conflict between State legislation (M.P. Commercial Tax Act) and Central legislation (Companies Act) by asserting that the provisions of Section 529-A of the Companies Act, a Central legislation, override the provisions of Section 53 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, a State legislation. Even though the appellant claimed rights under the State Act, Section 53 clearly subjects tax liabilities to Section 530 of the Companies Act, which, in turn, is subject to Section 529-A. The judgment emphasized that in case of a conflict between State and Central legislation, the Central legislation prevails. Citing a relevant Supreme Court case, the judgment dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant's claim as a preferential creditor had no merit. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's reasoning in resolving the matter.
|
