9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues or VAT dues is of no avail and has no efficacy in law in view of the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act. The property in question was sold by respondent no.6-Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and the petitioners were successful purchasers and the sale certificate is issued and sale deed is also executed by which the petitioners have become absolute owners of the property and therefore considering the existing position of law, the charge created by the respondent State over the property in question in the year 2018, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside and as a consequence the mutation entries in revenue records also stands deleted.' Conclusion - The respondent-authorities are directed to remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r purchased the said property in an auction held by Dena Bank under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [ Securitization Act for short]. The said land was originally converted into non-agriculture land by order dated 08.09.2010. The petitioner after purchase of the same, had applied for revised non-agriculture permission. The Collector, Patan dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide order dated 27.07.2022 by stating that there is a charge of Sales Tax Department over the property in question and therefore, the revised N.A permission cannot be granted. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that there is mutation of Entry No. 6127 dated 17.09.2013 which reflects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the charge on 11.10.2010 whereas, the Sales Tax Department has registered the charge subsequently in the year 2018 and therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in case of Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank Limited vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Civil Application No. 17891 of 2018 , the respondent-authorities be directed to remove the charge from the revenue record by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of attachment passed by the respondent-Sales Tax Department. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Raj Tanna for the respondent No. 1 submitted that it is not in dispute that the respondent-Authorities have registered the charge subsequent to that of the charge created by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Odhavji Mohanbhai Gadhiya Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein it is observed by this Court, that it is a settled legal position that VAT and Sales Tax dues has no precedence over the dues of the Bank for recovery of which the bank exercises powers under the SARFAESI Act and dues in nature of sales tax and VAT payable by the original owner cannot claim priority over the dues of the secured creditor and the principle that the state debt or crown debt has no prior claim or the dues payable to the secured creditors is no longer res integra, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Bank of Bihar Vs. State of Bihar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
