Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9, Mumbai

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ, M. S. KARNIK, J, N. J. JAMADAR, J
Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9, Mumbai – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Rajiv Narula, Mehek Choudhary, Jhangiani Narula and Associates, Shakib Dhorajiwala, Rushab Chopra, Vidhi Partners, Venkatesh Dhond, Sanjeev Sawant, Murlidhar Kale, Garima Joshi, Juhi Bhogle, Vinodini Shrinivasan, Pratik Pansare, Ranbir Singh, Nahush Shah, Nahush Shah Legal, Birendra Saraf, Vaibhav Charalwar, Sachin Chandarana, Vijayendra Purohit, Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co, Nitin Deshpande, J. P. Sen, Nikhil Rajani, Apoorva Kulkarni, Rupak Sawangikar, V. Deshpande and Co, Charles De Souza, Priyansh Jain, Apex Law Partners, Karan Adik, Padmakar S. Patkar| For the Respondents: Himanshu B. Takke-AGP, V. A. Sonpal-Special Counsel, Mohmmedali M. Chunawala, Parshuram S. Gujar, A. A. Ansari, Rakesh L. Singh, Heena Shaikh, M. V. Kini and Co, P. P. Kakade, B. V. Samant-AGP, R. A. Salunkhe-AGP, Jyoti Chavan-AGP, D. P. Singh, Naira Jeejeebhoy-Special Counsel

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of larger bench for legal issues. (Para 1 , 2)
2. priorities of secured creditors vs government dues. (Para 3 , 4)
3. historical context of debt recovery mechanisms. (Para 5 , 6)
4. impact of legislative changes on priority rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 15 , 20 , 151)
5. importance of cersai registration for priority claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 , 18 , 19)
6. legislative intent in establishing creditor rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 73)
7. comparative analysis of state and central law rights. (Para 22 , 23)
8. procedural requirements for enforcing tax claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. relevance of statutory provisions in case resolutions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
10. outcome of disputes based on attachment processes. (Para 35 , 36 , 216 , 217)
11. implications of fraudulent transactions in recovery cases. (Para 218 , 219)

JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

1. A Division Bench of this Court (cor. Chief Justice and M.S. Karnik, J.) while considering this batch of writ petitions was of the view that the issues emerging for decision therein can be advantageously heard and disposed of by a larger Bench. In deference to the order dated 25th November 2021 passed by such Bench and in exercise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BOMBAY HIGH COURTDIPANKAR DATTA, CJ, M. S. KARNIK, J, N. J. JAMADAR, JJalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. – AppellantVersusJoint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9, Mumbai – Respondent

Cases Referred (2)

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ, M. S. KARNIK, J, N. J. JAMADAR, J
Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9, Mumbai – Respondent