Allowed

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Secretary G B Sbanis v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Aug 2017WP/2220/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery of sales tax dues from it for assets bought at auction under SARFAESI Act. Court held petitioner was bona fide purchaser without notice of the charge and did not succeed to the business, so recovery cannot be enforced against them. Impugned communications set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communications dated 29th November, 2016 and 23rd January, 2017 set aside. Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute.

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2220 OF 2017

¶3

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd.,
Laxmi Nagar, Degaon-Yelegaon,
Tq. Ardhapur, District Nanded
through its Secretary,
Mr. Gajanan Balwantrao Sabnis,
Age : 44 years, Occu. Service,
R/o as above

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

2. Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Vikrikar Bhavan, Opp. Railway Station, Nanded, District Nanded

¶8

3. Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Pay Office, Nanded, 180, Vasant Nagar, Nanded – 431 605 through its Joint Manager

¶9

4. Hutatma Jayantrao Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Surya Nagar, Hadsani, Tq. Hadgaon, District Nanded, through its Chairman/Managing Director RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate instructed by and with
Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No. 4

¶11

¶12

wp2220-2017

¶13

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

¶14

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 20th JULY, 2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 1st AUGUST, 2017

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER : SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.):

¶16

Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the learned counsel for the parties and the learned
A.G.P., heard finally.

¶17

communications dated 29th November, 2016 and 23rd January,
2017, issued by respondent No. 2 seeking recovery of

¶18

sugarcane purchase tax and arrears of sales tax,
amounting to Rs.7,04,10,624/-, from the petitioner,
which were liable to be recovered from respondent No. 4.

¶19

3.The petitioner is a Sugar Factory, registered
under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
(“MCS Act”, for short) and is engaged in the business of
manufacturing sugar by crushing sugarcane. Respondent
No. 4 also is a Sugar Factory registered under the
provisions of the MCS Act. It was engaged in the same
business. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra
represented through its Secretary, Finance Department,

¶20

3 wp2220-2017

¶21

respondent No. 2 is the Assistant Sales Tax

¶22

Commissioner, while respondent No. 3 is the Maharashtra
Cooperative Bank Ltd.

¶23

4.The factual matrix of the matter is that
respondent No. 4, while carrying on the business of
manufacturing of sugar by crushing sugarcane, obtained
financial assistance from respondent No. 3 Bank, which

¶24

is a secured creditor. Respondent No. 4 had mortgaged
its immovable property with respondent No. 3 and created
an interest in favour of respondent No. 3 within the
meaning of the term "secured interest" under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

¶25

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(“SARFAESI Act”, for short). Respondent No. 4 stopped

¶26

its business of manufacturing sugar. Respondent No. 4
committed default in repaying the loan that was obtained
from respondent No.3. Therefore, by invoking the powers
under the SARFAESI Act, respondent No. 3 took possession
of the movable and immovable properties of respondent

¶27

No. 4 on 1st March, 2011. Respondent No. 3 called upon
respondent No.4 to clear off the outstanding dues.
However, respondent No.4 failed to do so. Respondent
No.3 then issued and published a tender notice on 16th

¶28

wp2220-2017

¶29

¶30

January, 2012 for sale of movable and immovable
properties of respondent No.4 for recovery of the loan
amount with interest. The reserved price was fixed for
sale of the properties of respondent at Rs. 45.29
crores. These properties include the machinery as well

¶31

as the lands and building (hereinafter referred to as
“the secured assets”) of respondent No. 4. As per the
terms of the tender notice, respondent No. 3 had offered
to sell the secured assets on "AS IS WHERE IS, AS IS

¶32

WHAT IS AND WHATEVER THERE IS” basis, which was without
any warranty, guarantee, assurance, undertaking or
representation of any kind whatsoever. The Authorised
Officer of respondent No.3 had clarified in clause 3 of
the tender notice that he did not take or assume any
responsibility for any shortfall of the movable or
immovable assets for procuring any permission, etc. or
for any dues, statutory or otherwise, of any authority
established by law and such dues, if any, would have to
be borne/paid by the purchaser. The last date of
submission of bids was 14th February, 2012. The date and
time of opening the bids was 11.00 a.m. on 16th
February, 2012.

¶33

5.The petitioner being interested in purchasing

¶34

wp2220-2017

¶35

¶36

the secured assets of respondent No. 4, submitted its
offer on 14th February, 2012 to purchase the same for

¶37

Rs. 48.51 crores. The petitioner being the highest
bidder, its offer was accepted and the sale was
concluded in its favour. The sale certificate was duly
registered in accordance with law on 27th November,
2012. The actual physical possession of the secured
assets of respondent No. 4 was given to the petitioner
by respondent No. 3 on 22nd November, 2012.

¶38

6.Respondent No. 2 had addressed a communication
dated 6th March, 2012 to respondent No. 3 stating
therein that the amount of Rs. 7,04,10,624/- was due and
payable from respondent No. 4 towards sugarcane purchase
tax, Bombay sales tax and Central sales tax and asking
respondent No. 3 to treat this amount as the first
charge on the sale-proceeds of the secured assets of
respondent No. 4 proposed to be sold out and recover the

¶39

same. Respondent No. 3 replied that communication on

¶40

2nd February, 2013 and denied its liability to recover
any amount from the sale-proceeds of the secured assets
of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 further informed
respondent No. 2 that the secured assets of respondent
No. 4 were seized under the provisions of the SARFAESI

¶41

6 wp2220-2017

¶42

Act and sold out to the petitioner for Rs. 48.51 crores.
Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued the impugned
communications to the petitioner for recovery of the
dues outstanding against respondent No. 4 to the tune of
Rs.7,04,10,624/- towards sugarcane purchase tax and
arrears of State Sales Tax and Central sales tax.

¶43

7.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶44

submits that the petitioner has purchased the secured
assets of respondent No.4 and not the business interest.
Respondent No. 4 had already stopped its business of
manufacturing sugar by crushing sugarcane. The
petitioner did not purchase running business of
respondent No. 4. The amount due and payable from
respondent No. 4 towards sugarcane purchase tax and
arrears of State sales tax and Central sales tax, which
are not the dues against the secured assets, but against
the business of respondent No.4, cannot be recovered
from the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel further
submits that the above referred dues outstanding against
respondent No. 4 were not made known to the petitioner

¶45

when the petitioner placed the bid for purchase of the
secured assets respondent No.4 on 14th February, 2012 or
even when the sale certificate was registered on 21th

¶46

wp2220-2017

¶47

¶48

November, 2012. The charge of respondent No. 4 for the
said dues was not reflected in the Record of Rights of
the lands of respondent No. 4. The petitioner was not
having even a constructive notice of the said charge.
The petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the secured
assets for valuable consideration, without notice of any
dues payable from respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 on
account of sugarcane purchase tax or arrears of sales
tax. Consequently, respondent No. 2 cannot recover the
said amount from the petitioner.

¶49

8.The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Nanded
Division, Nanded filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Based on the averments made in
the said affidavit-in-reply, the learned A.G.P. submits
that as per the terms of the public notice, issued by
respondent No. 3 for auction sale of the secured assets
of respondent No. 4, it was made clear that the
purchaser would be liable to pay statutory dues
outstanding against respondent No. 4. Respondent No.2

¶50

had intimated respondent No. 3 about the amount to be
recovered from the sale-proceeds of the secured assets

¶51

of respondent No. 4 towards sugarcane purchase tax and
arrears of Bombay sales tax and Central sales tax vide

¶52

¶53

wp2220-2017

¶54

letter dated 6th March, 2012. Respondent No. 2 further
informed the Talathi and the Circle Officer of Sajja

¶55

Hadsani, Taluka Hadgaon, District Nanded vide
communication dated 21st February, 2012 to record
charge/lien in the Record of Rights of the secured
assets of respondent No.4 for the above mentioned dues.
Accordingly, Mutation Entry No. 1747 was effected and
the charge was shown in the 7/12 extracts of the lands
of respondent No. 4. The learned A.G.P. submits that

¶56

the entries in the Record of Rights of the lands of
respondent No. 4 in respect of the charge for the amount
of Rs. 7,04,10,624/- would amount to constructive notice

¶57

to all the parties including the petitioner, who placed

¶58

bids in the auction sale of the secured assets.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot evade payment of the
said charges to respondent No.2. The learned A.G.P.
further submits that after getting the sale certificate

¶59

dated 27th November, 2012, the petitioner started its
business of manufacturing sugar in the immediate next
crushing season of 2013-14. Therefore, the petitioner

¶60

would be considered as the transferee of business

¶61

interest of respondent No. 4 and would be under an

¶62

obligation to clear the outstanding statutory dues
payable by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 2. On

¶63

¶64

wp2220-2017

¶65

these grounds, he submits that the Writ Petition may be
dismissed.

¶66

9.As stated above, the notice for sale of the
secured assets of respondent No. 4 was published in
"Daily Sakal" newspaper on 16th January, 2012. The last
date for submission of bids was 14th February, 2012. The
date of opening bids was 16th February, 2012. Since the
petitioner was the highest bidder, its bid was accepted
on 16th February, 2012. The tender notice and tender
document show that the Authorised Officer himself was
empowered to accept the bids and was not required to
obtain approval from any other Authority prior to
accepting the highest bid. Thus, the auction sale
practically was concluded on 16th February, 2012 itself
when the bid of the petitioner was accepted
unconditionally.

¶67

10.Respondent No. 2 seems to have moved the

¶68

Talathi and Circle Officer for placing the charge of the
dues outstanding against respondent NO. 4 towards the

¶69

sugarcane purchase tax and arrears of sales tax

¶70

amounting to Rs. 7,04,10,624/- for the first time vide

¶71

letter dated 21st February, 2012 (Exh-R1). Mutation

¶72

Entry No. 1747 showing charge of respondent No. 2

¶73

¶74

wp2220-2017

¶75

against the secured lands was certified by the Circle
Officer on 15th August, 2012. After certification of
that Mutation Entry, the charge of respondent No.4 came
to be shown in the 7/12 extracts of the lands of
respondent No.4. The sale certificate was registered on
21st November, 2012. The 7/12 extracts of the lands -
subject matter of the sale were annexed to the sale
certificate. The charge of respondent No. 2 was not
shown in the said 7/12 extracts. In the circumstances,
the petitioner cannot be attributed with the knowledge
or notice, either actual or constructive, of the charge
of respondent No. 2 in respect of the amount due and
payable from respondent No. 4 towards sugarcane purchase
tax and arrears of sales tax when it placed the bid for
purchase of the secured assets on 16th February, 2012.

¶76

11.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
cited the judgment in the case of Sherwood Resorts Pvt.

¶77

Ltd. and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
2015 SCC OnLine Bom. 5065. In that case, an attachment
order dated 29th April, 2013 (actually signed on 2nd
May, 2013), was passed by the Sales Tax Authorities
against the immovable property purchased by the
petitioners pursuant to an auction sale conducted by

¶78

wp2220-2017

¶79

¶80

SICOM, secured creditor, under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act.

¶81

12.It was the case of the petitioners that they
purchased the immovable property belonging to M/s Iccon
Oil and Specialities Ltd. (for short called as "Iccon
Oil Ltd.”) for valuable consideration without any notice
of the alleged charge of the Sales Tax Authorities. The

¶82

sale notice was issued on 25th august, 2012 under the
SARFAESI Act, inviting offers in respect of the secured
assets on an "As is where is" and "As is what is" basis.
The petitioners being desirous of purchasing the said
secured assets, placed bid in the public auction held on
10th September, 2012. The offer of the petitioners came

¶83

to be accepted by SICOM. SICOM confirmed receipt of the
entire sale consideration on 1st April, 2013 and
requested the petitioners to proceed with the execution
of the sale certificate. It was the case of the

¶84

petitioners that prior to purchasing the secured assets,

¶85

they undertook a complete title due diligence and
obtained 7/12 extract in respect of the secured assets

¶86

which recorded the name of Iccon Oil Ltd. as the owner.

¶87

In the said 7/12 extract, no charge of the Sales Tax

¶88

Authorities was reflected at that time. Considering

¶89

¶90

wp2220-2017

¶91

that 7/12 extract, the petitioners decided to bid for
the secured assets. When the petitioners could not
obtain registration of the sale certificate on account
of the excessive stamp duty demanded by the Registering
Authority, the petitioners again applied for and
obtained the latest 7/12 extract dated 9th January, 2014
in respect of the secured assets. At that time, they
were shocked and surprised to know that in that 7/12
extract, there was an additional entry showing charge of
Rs.2,77,72,073/- of the Sales Tax Authorities.

¶92

13.The petitioners therein contended that they had
bonafide purchased the secured assets by paying full
consideration to SICOM on 21st March, 2013, without
knowledge of the alleged encumbrance of the Sales Tax
Authorities. Therefore, they challenged the legality
and validity of the attachment order dated 29th April,
2013, issued by the Sales Tax Authorities.

¶93

14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the contesting parties, it was observed in
paragraph No. 23 of the judgment that when the sale
notice was published on 25th August, 2012, inviting
offers in respect of the secured assets, the Sales Tax

¶94

¶95

wp2220-2017

¶96

Authorities did not object to the sale of the secured
assets on the ground that they had a claim against Iccon
Oil Ltd. It was further observed that the petitioners
had obtained the 7/12 extract issued on 15th May,2012
prior to bidding for the secured property. It did not
reflect charge of the Sales Tax Authorities. Therefore,

¶97

the petitioners bonafide believed that the charge of
the Sales Tax Authorities, which was not reflected in
the 7/12 extract, was not there against the secured
assets and placed bid for the secured assets which was
accepted by SICOM on 15th March, 2013. The petitioners
made full payment of the sale consideration on 21st
March, 2013.

¶98

15.In the above background, in paragraph No. 28 of
the judgment, this Court referred to a decision of the
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka

¶99

Vs. Shreyas Paper Mills Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 615 and more
particularly, paragraph Nos. 18 to 21 thereof on the
issue of enforcement of charge, which read as under:-

¶100

"18. The next limb of Mr Hegde's arguments was that since Section 13(2)(i) of the KST Act creates a charge on the property of the defaulting company, the charge would continue

¶101

wp2220-2017

¶102

¶103

on the properties, even if it changes hands by transfer.

¶104

19. While the expression "charge" is not defined by the KST Act, this concept is well known in property law and has been defined by Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter "the TP Act"). Here "charge" is defined as:

¶105

"100. Where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property, and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge.

¶106

Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge."

¶107

20. As the section itself unambiguously indicates, a charge may not be enforced against a transferee if she/he has had no notice of the same, unless by law, the requirement of such notice has been waived.

¶108

This position has long been accepted by this

¶109

wp2220-2017

¶110

¶111

Court in Dattatreya Shanker Mote v. Anand Chintaman Datar [(1974) 2 SCC 799, 811 (para 18)] and in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad v. Haji Abdulgafur Haji Hussenbhai [(1971) 1 SCC 757, 759-61 (paras 3 & 4) : AIR 1971 SC 1201, 1202-04(para 3)] (hereinafter "Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn."). In this connection, we may refer to the latter judgment, which is particularly relevant for the present case.

¶112

21. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. [(1971) 1 SCC 757, 759-61 (paras 3 & 4) : AIR 1971 SC 1201, 1202-04(para 3)] was a case where a person was in arrears of property tax, due under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. Consequently, the Municipal Corporation created a charge over the property of the defaulter. However, the property was sold in execution of a mortgage decree. When the Municipal Corporation purported to exercise their charge over the property, the purchaser in court-auction filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the property and that the arrears of municipal taxes due by the transferor were not recoverable from him by proceeding against the property purchased in the auction. In the appeal before this Court, the Municipal Corporation's main argument was that where the local law provided for the creation of a charge against a property for which municipal taxes were due, transferees of such properties were imputed with constructive knowledge of any charge created against the properties that

¶113

¶114

wp2220-2017

¶115

they had purchased. This argument was, however, rejected. This Court held that while constructive notice was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of notice in the proviso to Section 100 of the TP Act, whether the transferee had constructive notice of the charge had to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case. [Ibid., at SCC pp. 765-66 (para 12) : AIR pp. 1207-08(para 8)] In other words, this Court held that there could be no fixed presumption as to the transferee having constructive notice of the charge against the property. In fact, the principle laid down in Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. [(1971) 1 SCC 757, 759-61 (paras 3 & 4) : AIR 1971 SC 1201, 1202-04(para 3)] has been correctly applied in a sales tax case similar to the present case. [CTO v. R.K. Steels, (1998) 108 STC 161 (Mad)].

¶116

16.In the case at hand, the facts are almost

¶117

similar. The notice for auction of the secured assets
of respondent No. 4 under the provisions of SARFAESI Act
was published by respondent No. 3 in "Daily Sakal"
newspaper on 16th January, 2012. Respondent NO. 2 or any
other Sales Tax Authority did not object to the proposed
auction of the secured assets of respondent No. 4. It
is the specific case of the petitioner that it obtained

¶118

17 wp2220-2017

¶119

7/12 extracts of the lands - subject matter of the

¶120

auction sale prior to placing bid in the auction. In
the said 7/12 extracts, the charge of Sales Tax
Authorities was not reflected. The said 7/12 extracts
are the part and parcel of the sale certificate dated
21st November, 2012.

¶121

17.It is stated by the petitioner that the Sales

¶122

Tax Officer had informed respondent No. 3 vide letter
dated 6th March, 2012 that there were dues to the tune
of Rs.7,04,10,624/- payable from respondent NO. 4
towards sugarcane purchase tax, Bombay sales tax and
Central sales tax and asking respondent No. 3 to recover

¶123

the same on priority basis treating them as a first
charge over the sale-proceeds of the property of
respondent No. 4. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not inform about
the said dues to the petitioner and further respondent

¶124

No. 3 deliberately replied the letter dated 6th March,

¶125

2012 belatedly on 1st/2nd February, 2013. As stated

¶126

above, the last date for submission of bids was 14th

¶127

February,2012 and the date of opening thereof was 16th

¶128

February, 2012. It is, thus, clear that when the
auction notice was published and the bids were opened,

¶129

¶130

wp2220-2017

¶131

there was no communication by the Sales Tax Authorities
made with even respondent NO. 3 about the dues pending
against respondent No. 4. Therefore, the communication
dated 6th March, 2012 made by the Sales Tax Officer to
respondent NO. 3 would not be of any help to respondent
No. 2 to show that the petitioner was made aware about

¶132

the dues standing against respondent No. 4 prior to
placing of the bid for purchase of the secured assets of
respondent No. 4. Had the said dues been brought to the
notice of the petitioner, the petitioner certainly would

¶133

have thought twice to place the bid for purchasing the
secured assets of respondent No. 4 for Rs. 48.51 crores.
The petitioner certainly would have considered the bare

¶134

value of the secured assets to be purchased and the

¶135

other known charges/encumbrances attached to it.
Perhaps, the petitioner would not have placed the bid
for Rs. 48.51 crores and reduced it to the extent of the
dues of respondent No. 2 payable from respondent No. 4.

¶136

In the circumstances, it would be clear that the
petitioner bonafide proposed to purchase the secured
assets of respondent No.4 for valuable consideration

¶137

without knowledge or notice, either actual or
constructive, about the charge of the Sales Tax
Authorities. Consequently, in view of the judgment in

¶138

¶139

wp2220-2017

¶140

the case of Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and another
(supra), respondent No. 2 cannot enforce the charge
for Rs.7,04,10,624/- as claimed in the impugned
communications dated 29th November, 2016 and 23rd
January, 2017, against the secured assets purchased by
the petitioner from respondent No. 3.

¶141

18.There is no dispute that the Sugar Factory of
respondent No. 2 was not functioning when the secured
assets were offered to be sold by respondent No. 3 by
auction as per the public notice dated 16th January,
2012. Respondent No. 3 had taken possession of the
secured assets of respondent No. 4 on 1st March, 2011
itself. In the letter dated 21st February, 2012,
addressed by respondent No.2 to the Talathi/Circle
Officer, Sajja Hadsani, Taluka Hadgaon, there is
specific mention about defunct status of the Sugar
Factory of respondent No.4. The letter dated 6th March,
2012 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3
also contains a positive statement that the Sugar
Factory of respondent No.4 is defunct. The Sugar Factory
of respondent No. 4 was in possession of respondent No.
3 from 1st March, 2011 onwards. Admittedly, respondent
No.3 had no licence to run Sugar Factory. It is not the

¶142

¶143

wp2220-2017

¶144

case of any of the respondents that it was being run by
respondent No.3 for manufacturing sugar until issuance
of public notice for auction sale on 16th January, 2012
and even thereafter till it was given in possession of

¶145

the petitioner on 22nd November, 2012. If the

¶146

petitioner makes such defunct factory functional and
starts manufacturing sugar under its own licence, it
cannot be said that the petitioner purchased the
business interest of respondent no. 4. It is, thus,
clear that the petitioner has not purchased and
succeeded the business interest of respondent NO. 4.

¶147

19.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
cited the judgment in the case of National Steel and

¶148

Agro Industries Limited, Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶149

and others2015 DJLS (Bom) 88, to which one of us (S.C.
Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party, wherein, almost under
the similar circumstances, it has been held that the

¶150

dues of the sales tax are not the dues against the
property, but against the business. The transfer of
ownership of business requires that the business should

¶151

be sold as an ongoing concern so as to render the
transferee as a successor in business interest of the
transferor. Only in such an eventuality, the transferee

¶152

¶153

wp2220-2017

¶154

would be liable for the transferor's sales tax

¶155

liabilities. In the present case, respondent No. 3 did
not transfer the business of respondent No. 4 either in

¶156

whole or in part to the petitioner. Consequently, the
petitioner cannot be held liable to pay the sugarcane
purchase tax and arrears of sales tax due from
respondent No.4.

¶157

20.In the case of Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and
another(supra), the sale certificate was not

¶158

registered. Even then, this Court held that the Sales
Tax Authorities cannot enforce their charge against the

¶159

secured assets purchased by the petitioners therein. In
the present case, the sale certificate has already been
registered on 21st November, 2012. Not only that, the
7/12 extracts produced by respondent No. 2 with his
affidavit-in-reply show that the name of the petitioner
has been mutated in the Record of Rights of the lands

¶160

purchased by it in the auction sale vide Mutation Entry
No. 1769. Moreover, the petitioner has obtained loan

¶161

from the Union Bank of India, Branch at Nanded by
creating mortgage on the said lands. Thus, the case of

¶162

the petitioner is on a better footing than that of the

¶163

petitioners in the case of Sherwood Resorts Pvt. Ltd.

¶164

¶165

wp2220-2017

¶166

and another (supra).

¶167

21.The case of M/s Sonoma Management Partners
Pvt.Ltd. And others Vs. bank of Maharashtra and others
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9649, cited on behalf of the
petitioner, also is on the same lines as that of the
above referred judgments.

¶168

22.For the above mentioned reasons, we hold that
respondent NO. 2 cannot recover the dues payable from
respondent No. 4 by enforcing any charge against the
secured assets purchased by the petitioner in the
auction. The impugned communications are liable to be
set aside and accordingly, set aside. However, we make
it clear that our order does not mean that respondent
No. 2 cannot proceed against respondent No. 4 -
defaulter factory. We further clarify that we have not
entered into the controversy regarding the priority
since it was not an issue before us. The issue of
priority between the Sales Tax Authorities and
respondent No. 3 shall be decided in appropriate
proceedings before the appropriate forum in accordance
with law.

¶169

23 wp2220-2017

¶170

23.The Writ Petition is allowed. The Rule is

¶171

accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
However, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the

¶172

parties to bear their own costs.

¶173

 Sd/-Sd/-
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶174

npj/wp2220-2017

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Secretary G B Sbanis v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaurao Chavan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Secretary G B Sbanis v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Shriram Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Surekha Pundlik Wagh Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar and Ors.

Kiran Bhikan Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Umesh Girish Arvind Pujari Vs Registering Authority Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation Jalgaon and Another

Syed Ashfaq Syed Vazir Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Basit Ansari Riyasat Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others