TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give way notwithstanding the fact that the State Legislation is within demarcated field. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India, [ 2022 (2) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that provisions contained in SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of Central Excise Act of 1944. Therefore, the provisions of SARFAESI Act shall have priority not over the State Excise Act but also over the Central Excise Act. Thus, it is concluded that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act shall have overriding effect to provisions of HPVAT Act and therefore, creation of charge upon the property in reference by and in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 vide Rapat Nos. 745 dated 8.8.2014 and 190 dated 10.12.2014 is not sustainable and the said property is to be permitted to be transferred in favour of petitioners free from all encumbrances in terms of E-aution dated 30.7.2019, confirmation of sale dated 2.8.2019 and Sale Certificate dated 4.11.2019, possession whereof has already been handed over to petitioners vide document Annexure P-2 on 5.11.2019. Petition allowed. - CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3446 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit and term loans by M/s Dev Bhumi Ispat, respondent No.5-Bank had invoked provisions of SARFAESI Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and in furtherance thereto, had advertised public notice for E-auction of suit property in newspaper dated 12.7.2019 proposing E-auction on 30.7.2019. In E-auction, petitioners were confirmed as highest bidders and to this effect, respondent No.5-Bank had issued Certificate of Confirmation of Sale of property under SARFAESI Act, 2002 vide communication/certificate dated 2.8.2019 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, on depositing sale amount of Rs.3,71,50,000/- including TDS amount, Sale Certificate dated 4.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) was issued by Authorized Officer. In sequel thereto, possession of suit property was handed over to petitioners and a certificate of handing and taking over the possession was issued on 5.11.2019. 4. It is also on record that vide Report No. 745 dated 8.8.2014, an entry was made in revenue record creating charge in favour of H.P. State Electricity Board for non-payment of Electricity Bill amounting to Rs.7,80,725/- by M/s Dev Bhumi Ispact. Thereafter, another entry was made in revenue record creating charge, vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. 10. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, referring judgment dated 31.3.2021 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA Nos. 27 to 31 to 2021 has canvassed that being an excise and taxation matter, as per Roster, present petition requires to be listed before and decided by Division Bench. 11. As per Roster, tax matters are to be listed before Division Bench. Every matter wherein Excise and Taxation Department is a party, does not become a tax matter only for a dispute with Excise and Taxation Department. The tax matter to be listed before the Division Bench would be a matter wherein validity of taxation law; imposition; levy and/or charging on tax; quantum of calculations of tax; interpretation of a tax charging provision etc are to be adjudicated. It is not the case in present case as in present case, issue involved is that as to whether secured creditors shall have priority, over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to Central Government or State Government or local authorities, upon the secured assets or respondent No.4-Excise Department shall have first charge on such property irrespective of creation of charge in the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decision dated 24.2.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2196 of 2012 titled Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India, reported in (2022 SCC Online SC 227) has held that provisions contained in SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of Central Excise Act of 1944. Therefore, the provisions of SARFAESI Act shall have priority not over the State Excise Act but also over the Central Excise Act. 18. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Punjab National Bank vs. State of HP, reported in 2021(3) Shim.LC 1545, has considered the relevant case law and provisions of HPVAT Act, SARFAESI Act as well as RDB Act and has concluded that provisions of Section 26 of HPVAT Act, 2005 shall have to give way to the provisions of Section 26-E of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and 31-B of RDB Act 1993. I, for the reasons assigned in said judgment and also for recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, concur with findings returned by the Coordinate Bench. 19. Pronouncements of Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 2491 of 2020 titled Canara Bank vs. State of HP and others; CWP No. 3447 of 2019 titled Sunil Kumar vs. State of HP and CWP No. 984 of 2019 titled Dr. Ajit Pal Jain and others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
