Per DESHMUKH D.K., J.: - These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order, because the challenge in these appeals is to the same order. In these appeals the order dated 7-2-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in following company applications is challenged.

C.A. No. 312 OF 2001 IN C.P. No. 712 OF 1997 WITH C.A. No. 421 OF 2001 IN C.P. No. 438 OF 1990 WITH C.A. No. 447 OF2001 IN C.P. No. 448 OF 1990 WITH C.A. No. 600 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 253 OF 1993 WITH C.A. No. 540 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 476 OF 1993 WITH C.A. No. 278 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 492 OF 1992 WITH C.A. No. 101 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 976 OF 1998 WITH C.A. No. 492 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 1145 OF 2000 WITH C.A. No. 135 OF 2002 IN C.P. No. 348 OF 1993 WITH C.A. No. 347 OF 2001 IN C.P. No. 669 OF 1998 AND C.A. No. 264 OF 2003 IN C.P. No. 521 OF 1992 2. Though, it is a common order, the order which is challenged in these two appeals was made in Company Application No. 540 of 2002 and Company Application No. 101 of 2002. Both these applications were filed by the State of Maharashtra for recovery of the amounts which were due to it from the company under liquidation under the Sales Tax Act. The claim of the State Government was that the State Government is entitled to recover the amount in question in preference to the claim of any other creditor including , the secured creditors and workers. It appears that, thereafter, at the hearing the relief sought was modified and it was claimed that the Court should direct that the State Government is entitled to recover its dues as secured creditors pari pasu with the secured creditors and workers. The learned Single Judge has granted that application of the State Government. The appellant in Appeal No. 658 of 2004 is SICOM, which is admittedly a secured creditor governed by the provisions of section 529-A of the Companies Act in relation to the company under liquidation and the appellant in Appeal No. 5 of 2008 is a Co-operative Bank which is also secured creditor governed by the provisions of section 529-A in relation to the company under liquidation.

3. There is no dispute before us that the provisions of section 529-A are applicable in relation to the dues of both the appellants. It was claimed, however, on behalf of the State Government that because of the provisions of section 38(C) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act statutorily the State Goven1ment becomes a secured creditor and therefore, it is entitled to payment of its dues along with the secured creditors and the workers. This contention of the State Government has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala & ors.)I, 2009 DGLS (soft) 281 : 2009(4) S.C.C. 94 submits that the Supreme Court in this judgment has considered the entire law on the subject and has held that to a property in relation to which provisions of section 529-A of the Companies Act operates, section 38(C) of the Bombay Sales-tax Act does not operate. The learned Counsel relying on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (Builders Supply Corporation Vs. Union of India)2, 1964 DGLS (soft) 319 : 1965(2) S.C.R. 289 submits that the provisions of the Land Revenue Code which provide for recovery of the dues of the State Government as arrears of land revenue does not elevate the dues to the level of dues of land revenue. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the learned single Judge has misread the provisions on the Companies Act and the Bombay Sales-tax Act.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State Government, on the other hand, relied on the observations in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (The Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax & anr., Dated 18th April, 2006 reported in 2006(6) Bom. C.R. 186 to contend that by operation of section 38(C) ch