Disposed

Bank of Baroda v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC18 Dec 2023WP(MD)/24020/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of Baroda filed a writ petition for a declaration as the first charge holder over a mortgaged property against the Income Tax Department. The Court affirmed the Bank's status as the first charge holder and directed adherence to SARFAESI Rules for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Petitioner Bank declared first charge holder; directed to follow SARFAESI Rules for auction and subsequent payment of tax dues from excess proceeds.

Bank of Baroda Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶7

Bank of Baroda through its Regional Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, 1^st Floor, Plot No.14, Door No.3, 4, 5, Sakthivelammal 10^th Street, S.S.Colony, Madurai – 625 016. .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, B B Kulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶10

2.Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Income Tax Department, Virudhunagar.

¶11

3.R.Miller

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Declaration, that the petitioner Bank is the first Charge

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶17

holder in respect of Building in SIDCO measuring 9436.44 sq.ft in S.No. 200/3, bearing Door No.4/624 under Assessment No.708 situated at Soolakkarai Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District for the Sale cum Auction proceeding that may be initiated by the petitioner Bank as against the above said property mortgaged by the 3^rd respondent.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramakrishnan for Mr.K.Muraleedharan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar Standing Counsel

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)

¶21

The Writ of Declaration has been instituted by the Bank of Baroda to declare the Bank as the first charge holder in respect of building in SIDCO measuring 9436.44 sq.ft in S.No.200/3, bearing Door No.4/624 under Assessment No.708 situated at Soolakkarai Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District for the Sale cum Auction proceeding that may be initiated by the petitioner Bank as against the above said property mortgaged by the third respondent.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶26

respondents 1 and 2/Income Tax Department made a submission that even as per the legal position settled by the Courts, the Income Tax Department shall be construed as the second charge holder. The petitioner being a secured creditor is the first charge holder and the Income Tax Department shall be considered as second charge holder as far as the subject property is concerned.

¶27

In view of the said position, the petitioner and the respondents 1

¶28

and 2 are at liberty to recover their dues by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Act.

¶29

As per letter dated 07.08.2017, addressed to the Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, the Income Tax Officer requested that the income tax arrears of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 may be considered for payment as and when the subject property was auctioned and after adjusting the dues of the Bank. The said procedures are contemplated under

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶33

Rule 9 of the SARFAESI Rules and the petitioner Bank is bound to follow

¶34

the said procedures as contemplated, in the event of excess money remains after adjusting the Bank dues.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be

¶36

no order as to costs.

¶37

(S.M.S.,J.) (L.V.G.,J.) 18.12.2023

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

¶39

To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, V.P.Rathinasamy Nadar Road, B B Kulam, Madurai - 625 002.

¶40

2.Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Income Tax Department, Virudhunagar.

¶41

Page 4 of 5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶44

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.

¶45

¶46

W.P.(MD).No.24020 of 2022

¶47

18.12.2023

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bank of Baroda v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Similar cases

Arunachalam Vs Kovilpillai Pandian

Thirunavukarasu Vs C. Arumugam

S. Senthil Kumar Vs Mrs.Diravida Mani Nallathambi

Sheela.P Vs The Authorized Officer

D.Indira. Vs The Authorized Officer

Sudha .S Vs The Authorized Officer