Point of Law :
A non obstante clause is generally incorporated in a statute to give overriding effect to a particular section or the statute as a whole. While interpreting non obstante clause, the court is required to find out the extent to which the legislature intended to do so and the context in which the non obstante clause is used

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

The petitioner in this Writ Petition is the State Bank of India, rep by it’s DGM and Branch Head, Stressed asset Management Branch, Hyderabad.

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice F.No.INV/DGCEI/HZU/ST/49/2016-17 dt.11.6.2019 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit (3rd respondent) issued under Sec.87 of the Finance Act, 1994 as being contrary to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) and seeks to have it set aside.

3. The 1st respondent herein is the Union of India, Ministry of Finance rep.by it’s Secretary, Service Tax Wing, New Delhi; the 2nd respondent is the Director General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit; the 4th respondent is the Deputy commissioner of Income tax, circle 3 (1), Hyderabad; the 5th respondent is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II & it’s Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Hyderabad.

4. The 6th respondent is M/s SEW Infrastructures Limited, Greenlands, Hyderabad, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

5. The petitioner Bank in it’s banking activity had sanctioned limits of Rs.820 Crores to the 6th respondent with working capital limits of Rs.198 crores (Fund based) and Rs.622 Crores (Non Fund based) and the limits were renewed during February,2016 along with consortium Banks.

6. The 6th respondent created a first charge by way of hypothecation of all it’s current assets and receivables as primary security and a mortgage over it’s immoveable properties as collateral security.

7. The loan accounts of the 6th respondent were classified as ‘Non Performing Assets’ as on 8.1.2016 as per the Reserve Bank of India norms. The petitioner then initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing a demand notice under Sec.13 (2) of the said Act and also took possession of 6th respondent’s properties under Sec.13 (4) of the said Act on 19.2.2018. These had been challenged by the 6th respondent in other forums.

8. The petitioner also filed on 13.4.2018 OA No.223 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad invoking the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs.280.68 Crores against the 6th respondent and it is pending.

9. In the meantime the 6th respondent received an Income Tax Refund Order for Rs.35,75,95,400/- on 20.5.2019 and it was credited into the TRA account of the 6th respondent in the petitioner Bank at petitioner’s CCG Branch, Hyderabad.

10. According to the petitioner, this amount, being a receivable, is subject the charge created by 6th respondent in it’s favor, and is entitled to be adjusted by it towards repayment of dues owed to it by the 6th respondent.

11. However the 3rd respondent issued the impugned notice dt.11.6.2019 to the Petitioner Bank invoking Sec. 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 stating that 6th respondent owes Rs.59,20,19,079/- towards dues of Service Tax; invoking Sec.87(b)(i) r/w Sec.73 (1B) of the Finance Act, 1994 it demanded that the petitioner Bank pay forthwith the Income Tax refund amount to the credit of the Central Government (i.e the 1st respondent) by way of a demand draft drawn in favor of “SBI Treasury Branch, Hyderabad for service Tax payment”; and if the amount falls short of Rs.59,20,19,079/-, he directed the petitioner Bank to subsequently transfer any amount becoming due from the petitioner to 6th respondent or any other amount held by it for or on account of 6th respondent to the extent of the shortfall to be paid to the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent also threatened to treat the petitioner as an ‘assessee in default’ otherwise.

12. A summons was also enclosed to the impugned notice under the repealed Central Excise Act, 1944 r/w Sec.174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 asking the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent.

13. The