PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) M/s. Sun Crush Fruits (P) Limited (hereinafter to be called 'assessee') is due in a sum of Rs. 2,16,756 by way of arrears of sales tax for the year 1991-1992. The respondent-Assistant commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated a proceeding before the learned special JMFC (sales Tax), Bangalore at Criminal Misc. No. 1057/96 for recovery of the said sum under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('kst Act' for short ). The learned magistrate issued fine levy warrant for recovery of the said amount under Section 421 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. by attachment and sale of the movable property of the assessee. The said movable property sought to be attached and sold was the plant and Machinery. But the said plant and machinery, by then, has already been mortgaged and hypothecated in favour of the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited, Bangalore ('ksiidc' for short ). The said KSIIDC is a financial corporation established under Section 3 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('sfc Act' for short ). The assessee is stated to be owing to the KSIIDC in respect of the loan for which it has mortgaged/hypothecated the plant and machinery, a sum of Rs. 1,38,31,361. By the time the learned magistrate issued fine levy warrant KSIIDC had already, in exercise of its power under Section 29 of SFC Act, taken over possession of the plant and machinery mortgaged/hypothecated. It was in execution of the warrant issued by the learned Magistrate under Section 421 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. that the said plant and machinery were sought to be sold. KSIIDC requested the learned Magistrate that the said corporation, i. e. , KSIIDC's claim has precedence over the sales tax arrears due in view of Section 29 (4) of SFC Act, and that it is only out of the residue of the money after adjustment towards costs of sale and discharge of debt due to KSIIDC that the respondent- authority would have the right to recover the sales tax arrears. The learned Magistrate, however, by the order impugned herein, held that, since under Section 13 (2) (i) of KST Act, change is created in respect of the arrears of tax, same should get precedence. He accordingly overruled the objections of KSIIDC. The said KSIIDC has now come up in revision under Section 397 Cr. PC.

( 2 ) SECTION 13 (2) (i) of the KST Act inter alia provides that in respect of the whole of the amount of tax or any other amount due under the Act outstanding on the date of default, same shall be a charge on the, properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax or any other amount due under the Act. There is therefore no doubt at all that in respect of the arrears of sales tax to the tune of rs. 2,16,756 due from the assessee, there shall be a charge on the properties of the assessee including the plant and machinery. To recover the said sum, if a proceeding under Section 13 (3) (b) of the kst Act is initiated, then the learned magistrate would be justified in issuing warrant for recovery of the said amount by attachment and sale of any movable property of the assessee including the machinery hypothecated to the KSIIDC. This could be the position if we look to only the KST Act and Criminal Procedural Code. If we look to the SFC Act, however, the position would be different. The first part of Section 46-B provides that the provisions of the said sfc Act, and of any rules and order made thereunder, shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in the memorandum or articles of association of an industrial concern or in any other instrument having effect by virtue of law other than the said Act. The second part of the said Section however provides that, save as aforesaid, i. e. , save as what is provided in the first part, the provisions of the said SFC Act would be in addition to and not derogation of any other law for the time being applicable to an industri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document