Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S. Orissa State Financial Corporation vs Commnr. of Commercial Taxes & Ors.

Supreme Court3 December 2009T.S. Thakur · D.K. Jain

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A statutory charge created under Section 13-B of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 in respect of sales tax dues shall have precedence over a mortgage or charge created in favour of a bank by a dealer in respect of a loan.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1434 OF 2003

M/s Orissa State Financial Corporation .. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commnr.of Commericial Taxes & Ors. .. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Despite valiant attempt on the part of learned

counsel for the appellant to convince us that in view of

some observations in Dena Bank Vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas

Parekh & Co. & Ors., 2000(5) SCC 694, the issue raised in

the present appeal requires consideration, in our judgment

the issue is no more res integra. In State Bank of

Bikaner & Jaipur vs. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corp. &

Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 19, explaining the scope of Section 11-

AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, "the

Act") which is pari materia to Section 13-B of the Orissa

Sales Tax Act, 1947, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has

held that the statutory charge created under Section 11-

AAAA of the said Act, the sales tax dues shall have

precedence over the mortgage created in favour of the Bank. To the same effect is another decision of this Court in

State of M.P. & Anr. vs. State Bank of Indore & Ors.,

(2002) 10 SCC 441, wherein it was held that a charge created by Section 33C of the M.P. General Sales-Tax Act,

..2/-

: 2 :

1958 in favour of the State in respect of sales-tax dues

shall prevail over the charge created by the dealer in

favour of the Bank in respect of the loan.

In view of the said pronouncements, we do not find

any substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore,

stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

....................J. [ D.K. JAIN ]

....................J. [ T.S. THAKUR ]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 03, 2009.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free