The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statutory first charge created by Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act overrides any prior charge claimed by a party over the property. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes that mere inadequacy of the price fetched at a sale is not sufficient ground to set aside the sale.

The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank established under the Cooperative Societies Act. It had granted a cash credit of 10 lakhs each to respondents 5 to 8 on 02.03.1995. The advancement of cash credit was against security taken on 3.36 acres of land in Sy.No.251/2 of Perinjanam village that was owned by the 9th respondent. The said land was mortgaged to the bank by deposit of title deeds. On default of repayment committed by respondents 5 to 8, the bank filed A.R.C.No.182/97 to 185/97 and obtained Exts.P2 and P3 awards in its favour. In the meanwhile, however, the mortgaged land was attached by revenue authorities in connection with sales tax dues of the respondents 5 to 8 who were engaged in abkari business. It is revealed from the facts in the writ petition that, the 9th respondent was also a partner in the said business. By Ext.P4 notice dated 19.04.1997, the respondent bank informed respondents 3 to 10 of the banks first charge over the property. The Tahsildar, the 4th respondent herein, effected a sale of the property pursuant to the attachment by the revenue authorities and the property was sold in two plots. The plot comprising of 54.495 cents was sold for an amount of Rs.5,45,000/- and the plot comprising of 2.078 acres was sold for a some of Rs.23,55,000/-. It is not in dispute that, the sales were confirmed on 21.02.2000 and 23.03.2000 respectively. Immediately after the sale, and before confirmation thereof, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 objection dated 18.01.2000, in terms of Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, before the 3rd respondent District Collector. The prayer in the said objection was to set aside the sale of 54.495 cents of land. Ext.P6 is a similar application in respect of the other plot of land measuring 2.61 acres of land. When no action was forthcoming from the District Collector, the petitioner approached this Court through O.P.No.15341 of 2000 which was disposed by Ext.P7 judgment directing the District Collector to consider the objection preferred by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said judgment, the District Collector by Ext.P8 order dated 01.05.2003, rejected the objections of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P11 order, the 2nd respondent dismissed the revision petition. A further revision filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent also did not yield any success. By Ext.P13 order dated 09.07.2008, the said revision was also dismissed on the ground that, the petitioner had sufficient notice and time to represent against the sale before it was confirmed, and the Government was of the view that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the 2nd respondent. In the writ petition, Exts.P11 and P13 are impugned, inter alia, on the ground that, the property sold was for a considerably lower value than what it could fetch in a proper auction. It is also the case of the petitioner that the person who purchased the property, at the auction conducted at the instance of the revenue authority, was a close relative of the defaulter. It is further contended that, the procedure under Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act was not followed in that 30 days notice was not afforded prior to the sale. There is also a contention that the sales tax demand against the defaulter was raised only in 1996 whereas the petitioner's charge over the property came into force in 1995 itself. It is the contention that, Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGST Act') which was introduced with effect from 27.07.1999 would not have any retrospective operation to overcome the prior charge of the petitioner over the property in question.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that the property in question was attached on 25.09.1996 and, as there were no buyers for the property as a whole, the property was decided into five plots and out of this plot 'C' measuri