Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (7) TMI 193 - HC - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Typographical correction in the prayer clause.
2. Priority of dues under SARFAESI Act.
3. Registration of the Sale Certificate and removal of encumbrances.

Summary:

Typographical Correction:
1. Typographical Correction: The court granted leave to the Petitioner to correct the typographical mistake in prayer clause (b) of the Petition, changing "Respondent No.6" to "Respondent No. 4". The correction was to be carried out forthwith in front of the Associate, with re-verification dispensed with.

Priority of Dues under SARFAESI Act:
2. Priority of Dues: The Petitioner sought to remove the lien/charge/encumbrance/mutation entry of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the records of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 concerning the immovable property (Secured Asset) and to direct Respondent No. 4 to accept and register the sale document issued by Respondent No. 3 in favor of the Petitioner.

3. Auction and Encumbrances: The Petitioner participated in an e-auction and was declared the highest bidder, subsequently paying the full bid amount based on Respondent No. 3's confirmation that there were no encumbrances or pending statutory dues against the Secured Asset. However, upon attempting to register the Sale Certificate, the Petitioner discovered existing encumbrances from Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Legal Arguments: The Petitioner argued that Respondent No. 3's security interest, registered with CERSAI, should have priority over the claims of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as per Section 26-E of the SARFAESI Act and supported by the Full Bench decision in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax. Additionally, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, thus lacking priority over Respondent No. 3's dues.

5. Support from Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3 supported the Petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the Secured Asset belonged to Mr. Prem Prakash Sarogi and not M/s Goldstar Polymer Pvt. Ltd., thus Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not claim dues from the properties of Mr. Sarogi.

6. Revenue's Concession: The counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 conceded that Respondent No. 3's registered charge with CERSAI had priority over their dues, but requested that any surplus proceeds from the sale be remitted to them.

Registration of the Sale Certificate and Removal of Encumbrances:
7. Court's Findings: The court found the issue covered by the Full Bench decision in Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., holding that the secured creditor's registered interest with CERSAI has priority over government dues. Since Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not register their claim with CERSAI, they could not claim priority over Respondent No. 3's dues.

8. Judgment: The court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the removal of the lien/charges/encumbrance/mutation entry registered by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and ordered Respondent No. 4 to register the Sale Certificate/Sale Deed issued by Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner, free from any encumbrances of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

9. Surplus Proceeds: Respondent No. 3 was directed to remit any surplus proceeds from the sale of the Secured Asset to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after appropriating its entire dues.

10. Costs and Orders: The Writ Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all concerned were directed to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates