IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
State Bank of India, SME Branch, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Finance Department – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 28316 of 2016, 5899, 28962, 31945, 37543, 37552 of 2017, 468, 12849, 27147, 34002, 34380 of 2018, 19639 of 2019
Decided On : 30-07-2019
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act- Section 26E ;; The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act - Section 31B ;; The Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act- Section 26B ;; The Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act- Section 38- The First Charge of the workmen's dues under the EPF Act and priority in payment of such dues under the Companies Act, concluding that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act are only bolstered and supported by the provisions of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act. This view certainly does not support the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, since arrears of tax revenue have not been, in any manner, protected either by the SARFAESI Act or by the RDB Act.
Statement of facts:
Challenging the action of the State's Revenue Machinery (the Revenue), in taking possession of and attempting to sell certain properties for alleged arrears of Sales Tax and Value Added Tax from its respective owners, which are claimed by them to be their secured assets, consequent to equitable mortgages having been created over them in their favour towards security for financial facilities/assistance availed of by its owners.
Finding of the court:
The dues to the workmen also enjoy priority under the aforementioned provisions of the Companies Act, the earlier provisions in the EPF Act, namely Section 11(2) thereof, which made such payments a First Charge over the property, can only be seen to be fortified and not overridden. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, clearly assimilated the First Charge of the workmen's dues under the EPF Act and priority in payment of such dues under the Companies Act, concluding that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the EPF Act are only bolstered and supported by the provisions of Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act. This view certainly does not support the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, since arrears of tax revenue have not been, in any manner, protected either by the SARFAESI Act or by the RDB Act.
Result : W.P. (C) No. 28316/2016 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 5899/2017 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 31945/2017 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 37543/2017 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 37552/2017 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 468/2018 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 12849/2018 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 27147/2018 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 34002/2018 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 34380/2018 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 19639/2019 is allowed
W.P. (C) No. 28962/2017 –dismissed
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
1. These writ petitions, save five, have been filed by various Banks and Financial Institutions challenging the action of the State's Revenue Machinery (the Revenue), in taking possession of and attempting to sell certain properties for alleged arrears of Sales Tax and Value Added Tax from its respective owners, which are claimed by them to be their secured assets, consequent to equitable mortgages having been created over them in their favour towards security for financial facilities/assistance availed of by its owners.
2. Four among the afore writ petitions, namely W.P. (C) Nos. 31945/2017, 37543/2017, 37552/2017 and 34002/2018 have been filed by the auction purchasers of secured assets sold by the Banks/Financial Institutions and they seek that the sale certificates in their favour be directed to be registered by the Revenue authorities, who appear to be refusing to do so citing arrears of sales tax left due by the original owners with consequential directions to effect the transfer of registry of the properties in their favour.
3. Finally, W.P. (C) No. 28962/2017 has been filed by the owner of a property challenging the action of the respondent-Bank against it for recovery of debts from him asserting that the Revenue has First Charge over it.
4. While the petitioner-Banks/Financial Institutions claim that they have the primary right, as secured creditors, to proceed against the properties in question under Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity) and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act ('the RDB Act' for brevity), the Revenue claims First Charge over them under the provisions of Section 26B of the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act and Section 38 of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act.
5. It is this conflict of claims and interests which are at the core of these writ petitions and which call for resolution from this Court.
6. Obviously, therefore, before I can move ahead, an examination of these four provisions become imperative, for which purpose, they are drawn out and reproduced as under:
(a) Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act:
“Priority to secured creditors - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code.”
(b) Section 31B of the RDB Act:
“Priority to secured creditors.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or loan authority.
Explanation - For the purpose of this section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured asserts of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code.”
(c) Section 26B of the KGST Act:
“Tax payable to be first charge on the property:-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, any a
Azheekkal Sree Varaha Devaswom and Another vs. Ummer Sait Abdulla Sait and Others
Assistant Commissioner (CT), Anna Salai-III Assessment Circle vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Others
Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and Others
Dattatreya Shanker Mote and Others vs. Anand Chitaman Datar and Others
Employees Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Official Liquidator of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited
Government of A.P. and Another vs. J.B. Educational Society and Another
Jitendra Nath Singh vs. Official Liquidator and Others
Kunjikavu Amma vs. Janaki Amma
M/s. Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. Tahsildar
Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Limited vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others
State Bank of India vs. Santosh Gupta and Another
State of M.P. and Another vs. State Bank of Indore and Others
State of Kerala vs. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Limited and Another
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur vs. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and Others
Textile Labour Association and Another vs. Official Liquidator and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.