SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
ANITA SUMANTH, G. ARUL MURUGAN, JJ.
D.K. Sadasivam - Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Tax Officer, Commercial Tax Department, Dharmapuri & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.2061 & 2062 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 21-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Valliappan Senior Counsel Mr. T. Deeraj (in both WPs).
For the Respondents: Mr. G. Nanmaran, Special Government Pleader (in both WPs).

The court affirmed that earlier registered charges of financial corporations take precedence over later sales tax claims, emphasizing the significance of prior registration dates in determining legal priority.

Headnote:(A) State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Section 24 - Legal priority of charges - Petition challenged the Commercial Taxes Department's claim on a purchased property, supported by the statutory rights of the financial corporation due to prior charge registration. The court favored the financial corporation as having the prior charge based on the Encumbrance Certificate dated back to 1991, which takes precedence over the tax authorities' claims established later in 2005. (Paras 40-43)

(B) Auction Sale - Conditions - The property sold on 'AS IS WHERE IS BASIS' carries associated liabilities such as tax arrears, and due diligence by purchasers is essential. (Paras 28-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased property encumbered by an earlier charge from the financial corporation. The Commercial Taxes Department claimed sales tax arrears as priority debt, seeking to attach the same property. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court recognized the earlier registered charge in favor of the financial institution and quashed the demand notice from the Commercial Taxes Department, issuing a mandamus against further interference with the petitioner’s ownership. (Paras 44-45)

Issues: The court addressed the relative priority of the financial institution’s earlier charge compared to the subsequent tax claims and interpretations of applicable statutory provisions. (Paras 11-13, 41-43)

Ratio Decidendi: The prior charge of the financial corporation holds precedence over the later tax claims; a non-obstante clause in specialized statutes favors secured creditors in priority disputes. (Paras 17, 38)

Result: Writ Petitions allowed; demand notice quashed, and mandamus issued against the attachment of property.

Table of Content
1. identification of parties and property in dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on financial arrangements and property charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10)
3. competing claims between creditors and government. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 21)
4. financial institution's role and priority. (Para 8)
5. priority of secured creditors' claims. (Para 18 , 22 , 26 , 36)
6. procedural due diligence in auction purchases. (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 39)
7. determining priority based on timing of registered charges. (Para 34 , 38 , 42)
8. determination of encumbrance priority through registration dates. (Para 40)
9. final decision regarding the allowed writ petitions. (Para 44 , 45)

ORDER :

ANITA SUMANTH, J.

These two Writ Petitions have been filed by an individual, the successful purchaser of the property at S.Nos. 7/10, 7/11 and 13/1 in Sigarahalli Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District (subject property). The prayer in W.P.No.2061 of 2012 is for a Certiorari calling for and quashing demand notice dated 12.01.2012 issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Dharmapuri District/R1, in respect of the subject property.

2. The prayer in W.P.No.2062 of 2012 is for a mandamus forbearing R1 as well as the Assistant Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes Department, Dharmapuri District/R2 from in any way attaching or alienating the subject property. The District Collector is arrayed as R3. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation at Chennai and Dharmapuri is arrayed as R4/R5 (hereinafter referred to either as TIIC or as R4/R5) and one Jayam Food Processing Industries is arrayed as R6 (hereinafter referred to either as R6 or assessee).

3. R3 to R6 are unrepresented before us and we have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.T.Deeraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nanmaran, learned Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2. Counters have been filed on behalf of R1/R2 as well as R4/R5.

4. From the pleadings as well as the submissions made by learned counsel, the following facts emerge. R4/R5 had provided financial assistance to R6 for setting up of a manufacturing project for fried gram. The deed of hypothecation-cum-mortgage was executed qua R6 and R4 on 11.07.1991 in respect of the subject property admeasuring a total extent of 4.13 acres by way of security for the financial assistance extended. Out of the total extent of 4.13 acres, 11 cents had been acquired by the Government for widening of the road.

5. The Encumbrance Certificate that has been placed on record reflects the creation of the charge on the subject property even as early as on 11.07.1991/15.07.1991. There appears to have been defaults by R6 in repayment of the financial facilities to TIIC and hence TIIC, invoking its power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (in short ‘SFC Act’), took possession of the subject property exercising the power to sell.

6. Auction sale notice was issued on 24.09.2003 by TIIC offering various units held by TIIC for public auction through sealed tender. Item 3 thereof refers to the subject property and reads thus:

Name of the BranchLocationActivityDetails of Assets

Dharmapuri Branch

3. Jayam Food Processing Unit

Sigralahalli Village Konangihalli, Near Thalapallam Village, Pennagaram TKMfr. of Fried GramsLand 4.13 acres & Building 21419 Sq.ft. ACC Roof 477 Sq.ft. RCC roofing 2978 sq.ft. Aluminium sheet roof open well 8500 sq.ft. drying yard 822 sq.ft. MTR Security shed & compound wall with Machinery

7. Our attention is specifically drawn by the learned Special Government Pleader to the conditions in that auction sale notice to the effect that ‘the assets of the following industrial units are offered for sale ‘AS IS WHERE IS CONDITIONS’ through public auction/sealed tender at our branch offices’. Thus, according to him, the incident of auction sale carried with it the liability to sales tax arrears as well.

8. This would brings us to the rival claim of the Commercial Taxes Dep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top