Dismissed

Sales Tax Officer CLASS-1 v. Bank of India

DRAT7 Sept 2022MISC APPEAL/128/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Sales Tax Commissioner against an order denying interest on recovered sale tax dues. The lower tribunal allowed only the principal amount, citing the appellant's delay in seeking adjudication before the property sale.

What did the court decide?

The Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,050/- alone without interest; the Appeal was dismissed.

Sales Tax Officer CLASS-1 versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 128/2007

¶2

Between

¶3

Asst. Sales Tax Commissioner, Pune … Appellant/s V/s. Bank of India & 8 Ors. …Respondent/s

¶4

Mr Vijay V. Chandavale along with Mr Vishal Tambe, Advocate for Appellant.

¶5

Mr Prashant A. Shinde, i/b M/s. Anant B Shinde & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶6

-: Order dated: 07/09/2022: -

¶7

This is an Appeal filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2006 of the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T, Pune, in M.A. No. 128/2005.

¶8

The application was filed before D.R.T., Pune, u/s 19 (19) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDDB&FI Act) for apportionment of the amount which was realized by the Respondent No.1 Bank on sale of the mortgaged and other properties belonging to the creditor on the basis of the Recovery Certificate that was issued in their favour. Proceedings were filed as Recovery Proceeding (R.P.) No. 89/2002 before the Recovery Officer, D.R.T., Pune, and the property was put up for sale in the year 2004, sold and the amount due was realized. Subsequently, M.A. No. 128/2005 was filed by the Sale Tax Officer Class-I, Pune, claiming a sum of Rs.1,37,050/- together with interest to the tune of Rs.3,98,920/- on

¶9

¶10

account of Sale Tax dues from the certified Borrower firm against which the Bank had proceeded, and obtained a Recovery Certificate.

¶11

The learned Presiding Officer in the impugned order has opined that there was an unreasonable delay and latches on the part of the Appellant for not having approached the D.R.T. or the Recovery Officer before the properties were put up for sale. 4. However, considering that it was a Crown debt the learned Presiding Officer was inclined to allow the claim limited to the principal amount that was due on the account of Sale Tax dues. The interest portion was declined to be granted because of the inaction on the part of the Applicant. The Recovery Officer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,050/- alone to the Appellant, without interest. The Appellant is aggrieved by that order and has challenged it stating that the Sales Tax Department is also entitled to interest on the amount that was due to them.

¶12

It is pertinent to note that at the time of filing the Application, the Appellant was entitled to claim the amount as the first charge over the property. Subsequent to the amendment of the RDDB&FI Act, the Appellant/Applicant could not have even claimed that because the amount due to the Banks would have precedence over the amount due to any other entity.

¶13

I find that the learned Presiding Officer was justified in declining to grant the interest for the reason that the Appellant did not approach the D.R.T. or the Recovery Officer before the sale was conducted and hence, there were latches on their part that cannot be condoned.

¶14

Subsequent to the filing of the Appeal, this Tribunal had

¶15

¶16

directed the Appellant to produce the documents but despite being granted sufficient time, no documents were produced, and the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant expressed his inability to produce the document because of lack of co-operation from the officers of the department.

¶17

After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case and on perusal of the impugned order and the available records, I find that there is no need for interference with the impugned order and hence Appeal is only to be dismissed.

¶18

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶19

All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

dpj-20

¶22

Sales Tax Officer CLASS-1 v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sales Tax Officer CLASS-1 v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s. Shree Dairy and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank Anr. Anr.

Shri Atul S/O Ganeshrao Watkar versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Anr.

Hubtown Bus Terminal Vadodara Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Shalimar Exhibitors

Jitendra a. Pathak versus Bank of Maharashtra

The Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited versus Shirish Lalaso Pawar