banner_ad

Secured Creditor will have precedence over Govt. Tax dues


Last updated: 10 September 2021

Court :
Supreme Court of India

Brief :
In Superintendent Central Excise & Customs v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6901/2011 dated August 12, 2021], the current appeal has been filed after a decade since the last order dated January 03, 2011 by the Revenue to recover its dues from the property whose rights were given to M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ("the Respondent") under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the SARFAESI Act").

Citation :
Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6901/2011 dated August 12, 2021

In Superintendent Central Excise & Customs v. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6901/2011 dated August 12, 2021], the current appeal has been filed after a decade since the last order dated January 03, 2011 by the Revenue to recover its dues from the property whose rights were given to M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ("the Respondent") under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the SARFAESI Act").

The Respondent was made a secured creditor of M/s Amod Petrochem Private Limited when it fell into a difficult financial position. While the Respondent’s debt was crystallized and steps were taken for attachment of properties under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. On the other hand, the Excise Department raised demands for evasion of duty from M/s Amod Petrochem Private Limited.

The matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein a Single Judge bench vide its order dated September 17, 2010 allowed the Appeal in favour the Respondent with regard to nature, title and possession in respect of the immovable property. The matter has thereby been brought up again from the side of the Revenue since the last order dated January 03, 2011 wherein leave was granted to the Respondent.

The Hon’ble Supreme in the current matter observed that there was indeed a creation of a secured debt in favour of the State Bank of India which was later transferred to the Respondent. Noted, the Respondent cannot be prevented from exercising its rights as a secured creditor on the pretext that there was a debt to the Excise Government arising from a confiscation order.

Further noted that in case there is any amount left after the realisation of the dues of the Respondent, that surplus fund can further be utilized to satisfy the dues of the Department. Also remarked, since it has been a decade there would have been a real estate escalation of the Immovable property at hand which may in turn result in satisfaction of everybody’s claim i.e the Department as well as the Respondent.

 

CCI Pro

Bimal Jain
Published in LAW
Views : 138

Comments




CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members

Follow us
add to google news



Company
ARTICLESHIP 15 May 2026
Audit Assistant / Article Trainee / Intern

SSGS and Associates

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
22 May 2026
U.S. Financial Reporting & Consolidation Manager

Karia Overseas

Ahmedabad

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 14 May 2026
CA ARTICLE

PRAVEEN GARG & CO

Faridabad

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
23 May 2026
Article Assistant

Geeta Manchanda & CO.

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
09 May 2026
Audit Manager

Kanna and Associates

Coimbatore

CA Inter

View Details
Company
18 May 2026
MIS Executive

Primarc Pecan Retail Limited

Mumbai

B.Com

View Details
Company
04 May 2026
Articleship

S.K Gairola & CO

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details
Company
24 May 2026
Accounts & Tax Executive

PARAS KHURANA AND CO

New Delhi

B.Com

View Details