At, High Court of Rajasthan
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.C. AGRAWAL
For the Petitioner: G.K. Garg, Advocate. For the Respondent: S.R. Joshi, Advocate.
1. This revision is directed against the order and judgment of the court below dated May 18, 1990, holding that the Sales Tax Department of the State of Rajasthan had a priority for recovering the amount found due from respondents Nos. 1 to 5.2. The petitioner, which is a nationalised bank, filed a suit for recovery of money on the basis of mortgage deed and other security offered by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 at the time of taking loans from the petitioner-bank. The sum claimed by the petitioner in the suit is Rs. 3,79,672.64.3. Before the suit could be decided, respondent No. 6, in order to enforce the assessment order obtained against the aforesaid respondents, put in the claim of priority before the court under Section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The said section reads as under :" 11AAAA. Liability under this Act to be the first charge. -- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount of tax, penalty, interest and any other sum, if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer, or such person. "4. Counsel for the petitioner urged that Section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act being contrary to Article 255 of the Constitution of India, is liable to be ignored.5. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that since the aforesaid section had not been made retrospective, it did not apply to the petitioner's case where the suit was filed in 1986 and also that without obtaining a decree in a properly instituted suit, the Commercial Taxes Officer could not enforce the right of priority.6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel are not correct. Although the aforesaid Section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was brought in 1989, it will be applicable to all claims of bank or any other persons and in that event, taxes would be recoverable as a priority.7. The law has given priority to the sales tax recoverable under the aforesaid Act. It is not necessary for the Sales Tax Department to file a suit for recovery of the same. The taxes are recoverable under the Act as arrears of land revenue and, as such, neither a suit was required to be filed nor that a claim of the taxes would have to give way to the claim of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. It is true that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was a nationalised bank, but that does not debar the application of the provisions of Section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act to the present case.8. Lastly, counsel for respondent No. 6 rightly contended that the judgment given by the court below at the most suffers from an error of law, but as Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked in such a case, the decision cannot be interfered with or set aside in the present revision. For the proposition, he relied on a decision of
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
the Supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76. This point need not be elaborated as it is settled that the High Court has no power to interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not.9. Consequently, the revision petition has no substance and it is dismissed.