Bombay High Court
Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. And Anr vs Joint Commissioner Of Sales Tax Nodal 9 ... on 7 August, 2019
Author: S.C. Gupte
Bench: M.S. Sanklecha, S.C. Gupte
Uday S. Jagtap 2935-18-WP-904=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2935 OF 2018
Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd.
and Anr. .. Petitioners
v/s.
Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nodal 9
Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents
Mr. Rajiv Narula I/b Jahangiani Narula & Associates for the petitioners Ms. Naira Jeejebhoy, Special Counsel a/w Mr. Kunal Bhange, AGP and H.B. Takke, AGP for the respondents CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J. DATED : 7 th AUGUST, 2019 P.C.
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. The petitioner seeks priority in respect of two flats (Flat No.501 and 503) mortgaged to it as a secured creditors over the Sales Tax Authorities (Sovereign debts) under the Recovery of Debits Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDB Act) read with the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement 1 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2019 20:29:09 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 2935-18-WP-904=.doc of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFESI Act). In the above context, the petitioners have challenged two notices dated 1 st January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 issued by the Sales Tax Authorities seeking to auction the two flats by claiming priority under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MVAT Act, 2002).
4. The asset viz the two flats which is subject matter of consideration in this petition has been sold by the petitioners during the pendency of the present petition. The consideration of Rs.92,09,814/- received on sale is with the petitioner. In the above view, the petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned auction Notices dated 1 st January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018. In the meantime, pending final disposal of the petition, the stay of the two impugned auction Notices dated 1st January, 2018 and 9th January, 2018 is sought.
5. Mr. Narula, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioners are a banker and the amounts would continue to be safe with them. Further, it would be brought to Court with interest in case this petition is finally dismissed. However, considering the issues involved and the sale of the subject assets having taken place during the pendency of this petition, without having taken prior 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2019 20:29:09 ::: Uday S. Jagtap 2935-18-WP-904=.doc permission of this Court, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by Mr. Narula on behalf of the bank. In the above view, the petitioners are required to deposit in this Court the amount realized on the sale of the asset i.e. Rs. 92,09,814/- within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry to invest the same in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank, in the first instance for one year and thereafter keep it renewed till the disposal of the petition for the benefit of the party who finally succeeds in the petition.
6. Subject to the above deposit, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c)(i).
7. The petition is expedited. Liberty to apply.
8. Ms. Jeejebhoy, learned Counsel for the respondents, waives service.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
3 of 3
::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2019 20:29:09 :::