ORDER :

(P. Naveen Rao, J.)

1. In W.P.No.42450 of 2018, petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal in rejecting the application to direct the respondents to comply the provisions under Section 31-B of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Act, 1993’) and to enforce the recovery order, which decision is affirmed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In W.P.No.41691 of 2018, petitioner-Bank is challenging the attachment order issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (1st respondent) attaching the secured asset.

2. The third respondent borrowed money from the petitioner bank and respondent Nos.4 to 8 stood as guarantors for the loan facilities availed by the third respondent. The loan facilities extended to third respondent were secured by way of mortgaging different properties including the property admeasuring 9,317 square yards with RCC building and sheds situated in Sy.No.15, Plot No.7-A, Gaddapotharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District Telangana State.

3. Holding that the third respondent failed to discharge the debt, the bank declared the loan account of the third respondent as non-performing asset and the bank has taken recourse to the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for Short “2002 Act”) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for Short “1993 Act”) to recover the money due. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1179 of 2013 in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad subsequently re-numbered as O.A.No.286 of 2017 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. The said O.A was decreed for the debt amount of Rs. 9,16,61,397/- with pendent lite and future interest and costs. Recovery certificate was issued on 13.09.2017. Challenging the same though the respondents filed W.P.No.26263 of 2018, but the same was withdrawn.

4. The petitioner bank has filed an application before the Recovery Officer-I requesting the Recovery Officer to comply the provision under Section 31B of the 1993 Act and to enforce the recovery order already passed. The said application was rejected by order dated 28.07.2018. The Recovery Officer held that he is not competent to declare that petitioner-Bank has priority over the dues to be recovered by the State Government under Section 82 of the TGST Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I dismissed Appeal No.6of 2018 by order dated 11.10.2018 affirming the opinion expressed by the Recovery Officer. Challenging these two orders, petitioner filed W.P.No.42450 of 2018.

5. On 30.11.2016 respondent Nos.1 and 2 passed attachment order attaching the secured assets and on 03.07.2018 they have issued sale notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. W.P.No.41691 of 2018 is filed challenging the attachment order by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Government of Telangana, Jogipet unit of Medak Circle, Nizamabad Division, dated 30.11.2016, attaching 9,317 square yards of land with RCC building and sheds in Sy.No.15, Plot No.7A situated in Gaddapotharam Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District on the ground that the borrower of the Bank is due in taxes to the State.

6. The borrower of petitioner-Bank is a dealer. He has availed Sales Tax deferment incentive for setting up the industrial unit available for a period of 14 years from the date of setting up the unit. As per the scheme formulated by the Government as incentive the tax payable under TSGST, CST and VAT Act is treated as interest free loan. The unit has to pay deferred sales tax at the end of the 14th year. If not paid, it is treated as dues and interest @ 21.5% is levied. The State alleges that though 3rd respondent availed the incentive but failed to repay and became a defaulter. As per Government Orders, the amount due is recoverable. On 11.11.2013, demand notice was issued demanding to pay the tax arrears, going back to 1998-1999, a total of Rs. 1,73,36,581/-. The Officials of the State Government have