STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. HIMANSHU PRASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against judgment dtd. 11/5/2023 passed in CWP No.2719 of 2022, titled as Himanshu Prashar vs. Punjab National Bank and others, and other connected matters, whereby writ petition preferred by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar, praying for quashing the entries in revenue record as depicted in Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 (Annexure P-5 of CWP No.2719 of 2022) has been allowed by referring judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2169 of 2012, titled as Punjab National Bank vs. Union Bank of India and others, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 260: AIR 2022 SC 1475.

(2.) Respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar participated in e-Auction conducted by and on behalf of Punjab National Bank, for selling of assets of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law and provisions of SARFAESI Act read with Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. By offering highest price bid of an amount of Rs.6,38,00,000.00, he deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) on 21/9/2021. Vide communication dtd. 23/9/2021 Punjab National Bank accepted and confirmed the bid offered by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar for the purchase of assets of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. and Sale Certificate dtd. 30/9/2021 was issued in his favour by mentioning description of property purchased by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar and list of encumbrances freed from. On depositing the sale price physical possession was handed over to respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar alongwith superstructure constructed thereon. On finding record of report No.231 dtd. 18/3/2015 creating charge in favour of the State for liability of Tax to be paid by M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar preferred CWP No.2719 of 2022 for removal thereof.

(3.) Appellant-State mainly relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 4 SCC 94, is pressing for allowing appeal on the ground that keeping in view provisions of Sec. 26 of Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'H.P. VAT Act, 2005') first charge was created in favour of State on the property of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. purchased by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar, and thus, priority has to be given to the statutory charge over all other charges on the property including mortgage.