9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents 1 to 4; Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Mr.S.Diwakar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the sixth respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 28.06.2016 and to direct the first respondent to lift the attachment made out in the property in question. The impugned order states that the property in question was attached towards the demand of income tax in the case of M/s.Feena Petro Products Ltd., represented by its directors Mr.A.S.T.Winston, Mr.A.S.T.Newton, Mr.A.S.T.Milton and Mr.A.S.T.Silverster. The property in question was the individ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner submitted a representation stating that they have purchased the property through a public auction conducted by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Chennai and as on date of sale, there was no attachment over the property and to support contention, they have produced the copies of the encumbrance certificate for the relevant period. The petitioner prayed for lifting the order of attachment. This request appears to have not been considered, which prompted the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Income Tax, by representation dated 29.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent, Tax Recovery Officer, Chennai to lift the attachment by representation dated 14.04.2016 followed by another representation to the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chaser of the mortgaged property in question.'' 2.We are of the view that if there was at all any doubt, the same stands resolved by view of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016, Section 41 of the same seeking to introduce Section 31B in the Principal Act, which reads as under:- ''31B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created''. 7.We, thus, answer the aforesaid reference accordingly. 8.The matters be placed before the roster Division Bench for dealing with the individual cases." Thus, by applying the decision of the Full Bench referred above, the law having come into force, governs the parties even in respect of litigations which are pending. Therefore, the Income Tax Department cannot claim any precedence over the secured creditor in proceeding against the subject property for the recovery of the income tax arrears in the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench, which was rendered taking note of the recent enactment viz., the Enforcement of Security Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
