Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ronak Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Excise & Customs (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition (L) No.1747 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/06/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ronak Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Excise & Customs (Bombay High Court)

Bombay High Court held that that since revenue authorities have not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, they cannot claim priority over dues of the Government.

Facts- The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a direction inter alia to remove the lien/charge/encumbrance/mutation entry of Respondent No.1 and 2 from the records of Respondent No.4 and 5 in respect of the immovable property bearing Survey No.366/5 admeasuring 1200 sq.mtrs Plot No.16, and Survey No.366/6 admeasuring 1200 sq.mtrs Plot No.17, totally admeasuring 2400 mtrs and structures thereon along with plant and machinery lying at the Premier Industrial Estate, Kachigam, within the village panchayat jurisdiction of Kachigam, Taluka Daman, sub-district and district of Daman pin code 396 215 (for short the ‘Secured Asset’) and to direct Respondent No. 4 to accept and register the document of sale/sale certificate issued by Respondent No.3 in favour of the Petitioner.

Conclusion- We find that issue raised in the present Petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax Nodal 9, Mumbai and Anr. In this decision, the Full Bench has clearly held that if the security interest of the secured creditor is registered with CERSAI, then the secured creditor would get priority over the dues of the Government. We are of the view that since Respondent No.1 and 2 have not registered their claim/attachment order with CERSAI, Respondent No.1 and/or 2 cannot claim priority over dues of Respondent No.3.

Held that the lien/charges/encumbrance/mutation entry, if any, registered with the Respondent No. 5 (Mamlatdar) by Respondent No. 1 & 2 (Revenue Authorities) cannot be allowed to stand and the Respondent No. 4 (Sub-Registrar) would have to be directed to record/register the Sale Certificate/Sale Deed under the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 as free from any encumbrances of the Respondent No. 1 and 2.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031