Section 16-B of the HPGST Act provides for tax as a first charge on property, overriding other laws.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

Preface

1. A thin thread connects the two sets of civil appeals¹[Civil Appeal Nos. 8980-8981/2012 and Civil Appeal Nos. 9212-9213/2012], which are at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh (for brevity, “the State”, hereafter) and its officers. Since the provisions of law emerging for consideration are almost the same in terms, though in different fact situations, these appeals were heard one after the other and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Civil Appeal Nos.8980-8981/2012

2. Civil Appeal No. 8980 of 2012 is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 7th September, 2007 allowing a writ petition²[CWP No. 306/2007] presented before it by M/s. A.J. Infrastructures (Pvt.) Ltd., the first respondent, on 6th March, 2007. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: -

“For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Order rejecting petitioner's application for not mutating the entry in their name is quashed and set aside. The respondents no. 1 to 5 are directed to delete the adverse entry showing the sales tax dues of M/s Regent Rubber and M/s Eastman Rubber in relation to the property comprising in Khasra No. 254/2/1, Khatauni Nos. 7 Min, 14 Min, Measuring 3 Bighas 7 Bishwas, situated at Village Moginand, Kala-Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, HP and further respondent no. 3 is directed to mutate the property in the name of petitioner company. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs, which is quantified at Rs, 25,000/-from respondents no. 1 to 5.“

3. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2007, the official respondents in the writ petition applied for a review³[CMP No. 1160/2008]. By an order dated 29th October, 2009, the High Court proceeded to dispose of the application for review by, inter alia, the following order :-

“The present application of review has been filed after delay of more than one year without proper and satisfactory explanation. No sufficient material has been placed on record for reviewing the order dated 07-09-07, which may be brought within four corners and provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as observed in foregoing decisions. Therefore, only for taking different view, the said order dated 07-09-09 cannot be reviewed. In these circumstances, the present application for reviewing the order dated 07-09-09 is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits.”

The said order dated October 29, 2009 is challenged in C.A. No. 8981 of 2012.

4. The facts pleaded in the writ petition reveal that the first respondent had purchased the subject property (described in full in the operative part of the order dated 7th September, 2007, extracted above) in an auction conducted by the State Bank of Patiala (for brevity “State Bank”, hereafter) on 18th January, 2005 in exercise of power conferred by the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, “the SARFAESI Act”, hereafter). The subject property was initially mortgaged on 11th October, 1999 with the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation (for brevity “HPFC”, hereafter) by M/s. Regent Rubber Private Limited (for brevity “Regent”, hereafter). Due to breach committed by Regent, HPFC took over the property and sold it in an open auction to M/s Eastman Rubber (for brevity “Eastman”, hereafter). The subject property was thereafter mortgaged by Eastman with the State Bank. However, Eastman too having committed default in liquidating its dues, the subject property was eventually put up for sale in an open auction on 18th January, 2005 under rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity “SARFAESI Rules”, hereafter).

5. The first respondent emerged as the highest bidder in the auction by quoting a sum of Rs. 50,01,000/-. Within the stipulated time, the first respondent paid the entire bid amount whereupon in accordance with the provisions of rule 9(6) a