ORAL JUDGMENT All these Applications can be disposed of by common judgment, as it involve similar questions. Therefore, I propose to dispose-of the same together by this common judgment. The Respondent Company in each of these Applications, has been directed to be wound up in terms of the order passed by the Company Court in each of the above numbered Company Petitions. The Official Liquidator has also been appointed in respect of the assets of each of these companies in liquidation. All Company Applications, except Company Application No. 264 of 2003, have been filed by the State of Maharashtra, whereas Company Application No. 264 of 2003 has been taken out by the State of Karnataka. In Company Application Nos. 312 of 2001, 347 of 2001, 447 of 2001, 493 of 2002 and 600 of 2002, the State of Maharashtra, the Applicant therein, is claiming recovery of dues, which were receivable from the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; and whereas, in Company Application Nos. 135 of 2002, 421 of 2001, 278 of 2002 and 540 of 2002, it is claiming recovery of dues receivable from the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; and whereas in Company Application No. 101 of 2002, recovery of dues receivable from the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1989 is claimed. In Company Application No. 264 of 2003, the State of Karnataka, Applicant therein, is claiming recovery of dues receivable from the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, as also under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In all these Applications as filed, the claim of the Applicants is that it is entitled for recovery of the amounts in question in precedence to the claim of any other Creditor, including the Secured Creditors and the Workers. In all these Applications as filed, the claim of the Applicants is that it is entitled for recovery of the amounts in question in precedence to the claim of any other Creditor, including the Secured Creditors and the Workers. However, during the course of arguments, the Counsels appearing for the Applicants in each of these Applications modulated the argument; realising that such a plea was untenable in view of the settled legal position and, instead, contended that, by operation of law, the Applicant will have to be held as a Secured Creditor and entitled to recover its dues on pan passu basis along with the other Secured Creditors and Workers, by virtue of Section 529A of the Companies Act. I am called upon to examine this limited issue, which is a pure question of law, as is canvassed on behalf of the Applicants. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation contend that it is well settled that the State is not entitled to recover its dues under the provisions, such as, Bombay Sales Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act, etc., in precedence to the claim of the Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation, by virtue of the non-obstante provisions contained in Section 529A of the Companies Act. According to them, the Applicant would be entitled to recover dues at best in preference to the Unsecured Creditors of the Company in liquidation. In Company Application No. 264 of 2003, Counsel appearing for the Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation additionally contended that the properties/assets of the Company in liquidation are situated within the State of Maharashtra, which cannot be invoked for satisfaction of the outstanding dues arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act or the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, which became payable on account of transactions entered into by and on behalf of the Company in liquidation in the State of Karnataka. The moot question that arises for my consideration is : Whether the Applicants can be treated as "Secured Creditors" by operation of law and would, therefore, be entitled for recovery of its dues along with the other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis ? The moot question that arises for my consideration is : Whether the Applicants can be treated as "Secured Creditors" by operation of law and would, therefore, be entitled for recovery of its dues along with the other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis ? To address this question, it will be apposite to advert to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 529, as amended in 1985 and as applicable in the present case, reads thus : "529 Application of insolvency rules in winding up of insolvent Companies. - (1) In the winding-up of an insolvent company, the same rules shall prevail and be observed with regard to - (a) debts provable; (b) the valuation of annuities and future and contingent liabilities; and (c) the respective rights of secured and unsecured creditors; as are in force for the time being under the law of insolvency with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent : Provided that the security of every secured creditor shall be deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the workmen to the extent of the workmen's portion therein, and, where a secured creditor, instead of relinquishing his security and proving his debt, opts to realise his security, - (a) the liquidator shall be entitled to represent the workmen and enforce such charge; (b) arty amount realised by the liquidator by way of enforcement of such charge shall be applied ratably for the discharge of workmen's dues; and (c) so much of the debt due to such secured creditor as could not be realised by him by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this proviso or the amount of the workmen's portion in his security, whichever is less, shall rank pari passu with the workmen's dues for the purposes of Section 529A. (2) All persons who in any such case would be entitled to prove for and receive dividends out of the assets of the company, may come in under the winding up, and make such claims against the company as they respectively are entitled to make by virtue of this section : Provided that if a secured creditor instead of relinquishing his security and proving for his debt proceeds to realise his security, he shall be liable to pay his portion of the expenses incurred by the liquidator (including a provisional liquidator, if any) for the preservation of the security before its realization by the secured creditor. Explanation : For the purposes of this proviso, the portion of expenses incurred by the liquidator for the preservation of a security which the secured creditor shall be liable to pay shall be the whole of the expenses, less an amount which bears to such expenses the same proportion as the workmen's portion in relation to the security bears to the value of the security. (3) For the purposes of this section, section 529A and section 530, - (a) Workmen' in relation to a company, mean the employees of the company, being workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); (b) 'Workmen's dues' in relation to a company, means the aggregate of the following sums due from the company to its workmen, namely :- (i) all wages or salary including wages payable for time or piece work and salary earned wholly or in part by way of commission of any workman, in respect of services rendered to the company and any compensation payable to any workman under any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947); (ii) all accrued holiday remuneration becoming payable to any workman, or in the case of his death to any other person in his right, on the termination of his employment before, or by the effect of, the winding up order or resolution; (iii) unless the company is being wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company, or unless the company has, at the commencement of the winding up, under such a contract with insurers as is mentioned in Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), rights capable of being transferred to and vested in the workman, all amounts due in respect of any compensation or liability for compensation under the said Act in respect of the death or disablement of any workman of the company; (iv) all sums due to any workman from a provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the workmen, maintained by the company; (c) 'Workmen's portion', in relation to the security of any secured creditor of a company, means the amount which bears to the value of the security the same proportion as the amount of the workmen's dues bear to the aggregate of - (i) the amount of workmen' dues; and (ii) the amounts of the debts due to the secured creditors. Illustration The value of the security of a secured creditor of a company is Rs. 1,00,000. The total amount of the workmen's dues is Rs. 1,00,000. The amount of the debts due from the company to its secured creditors is Rs. Illustration The value of the security of a secured creditor of a company is Rs. 1,00,000. The total amount of the workmen's dues is Rs. 1,00,000. The amount of the debts due from the company to its secured creditors is Rs. 3,00,000/- The aggregate of the amount of workmen's dues and of the amounts of debts due to secured creditors is Rs. 4,00,000/- The workmen's portion of the security is, therefore, one-fourth of the value of the security, that is Rs. 25,000". Section 529A of the Act, which has been introduced in 1985 by the Amending Act No. 35 of 1985, reads thus : "529A. Overriding preferential payments. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company - (a) workmen's dues; and (b) debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 529 pari passu with such dues, shall be paid in priority to all other debts. (2) The debts payable under clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportions". Section 530(1)(a) of the Act reads thus : "530. Preferential payments. - (1) In a winding up, subject to the provisions of Section 529A, there shall be paid in priority to all other debts - (a) all revenue, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local authority at the relevant date as defined in clause (c) of sub-section (8), and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date; It is not in dispute that all the Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation, by virtue of Section 529A of the Act, are entitled for precedence of payment, along with the Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis towards the satisfaction of their dues to all other debts of the Company in liquidation. The question posed before me is, whether the State of Maharashtra and the State of Karnataka in the respective applications can be treated to be Secured Creditors by operation of law. The question posed before me is, whether the State of Maharashtra and the State of Karnataka in the respective applications can be treated to be Secured Creditors by operation of law. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then the State Government would also be entitled for disbursement of their dues as any other Secured Creditor for the purpose of Section 529A of the Act. Insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, Applicant in the respective Applications, it has claimed recovery of its dues arising under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the Central Sales Tax Act and the Maharashtra State Tax on Works Contract Act, 1989. It is, therefore, necessary to advert the scheme of the respective legislations to ascertain as to whether the State of Maharashtra can be treated as Secured Creditor by operation of law. We shall first advert to the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. It is appropriate to advert to Sections 38(5), 38B(1) and 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, as introduced by the Maharashtra Act No. XVII of 1999. The said provisions read thus : "38. Payment of tax and deferred payment of tax, etc. (1) to (4) ............ (5) Any tax, penalty, interest or sum forfeited, which remains unpaid after the service of notice under sub-section (4), or any instalment not duly paid, shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue". "38B. Special powers of Sales Tax Authorities for recovery of tax as arrears of land revenue. (1) to (4) ............ (5) Any tax, penalty, interest or sum forfeited, which remains unpaid after the service of notice under sub-section (4), or any instalment not duly paid, shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue". "38B. Special powers of Sales Tax Authorities for recovery of tax as arrears of land revenue. - (1) For the purpose of effecting recovery of the amount of tax, penalty, interest and amount forfeited, due and recoverable from any dealer or other person by or under the provisions of this Act, as arrears of land revenue, - (i) the Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Commissioner under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; (ii) the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Additional Commissioner under the said Code; (iii) the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Collector under the said Code; (iv) the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax shall have and exercise all the powers (except the powers of arrest and confinement of a defaulter in a civil jail) and perform, all the duties of the Assistant or Deputy Collector under the said Code; (v) the Sales Tax Officer shall have and exercise all the powers (except the power of confirmation of sale and arrest and confinement of a defaulter in a civil jail) and perform all the duties of the Tahsildar under the said Code". "38C. Liability under this Act to be first charge. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract to the contrary but subject to any provision regarding first charge in any Central Act for the time being in force, any amount of tax, penalty, interest or any other sum, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer, or, as the case may be, person", On plain language of Section 38(5), it clearly provides that any tax, penalty, interest or sum forfeited, which remains unpaid after the service of notice under sub-section (4) or any instalment not duly paid shall be recoverable as an arrears of Land Revenue. Insofar as Section 38B(1) is concerned, even that has made similar provision of treating the outstanding amount of tax, penalty, interest or amount forfeited due and recoverable from any dealer or other person by or under the provisions of the Act as arrears of Land Revenue. Whereas, Section 38C, which has been introduced in 1999, expressly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract to the contrary, but subject to any provision regarding first charge in any Central Act for the time being in force, any amount of tax, penalty, interest or any other sum, shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer, or as the case may be, person. To put it differently, this is a special provision so as to give precedence to the recovery of dues under the Bombay Sales Tax Act by treating the same as "first charge" on the property in question. The provision, however, also takes into account that in case there is any provision regarding first charge in any Central Act, that would obviously override the arrangement directed by virtue of Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. In other words, if there was any provision in any Central Act regarding first charge, that would prevail over the first charge of the State of Maharashtra on the self-same property by virtue of Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. In the present case, the argument canvassed on behalf of the Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation is that Section 529A of the Companies Act is a provision which recognises their first charge over the property of the Company in liquidation. To my mind, Section 529A of the Companies Act is only a provision of giving precedence to the disbursement or payment of the dues to the Workers along with the Secured Creditors on pari passu basis. This view is fortified by the enunciation of the Apex Court, to which I shall make reference little later. In the present case, emphasis is placed on Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act by the Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra. This view is fortified by the enunciation of the Apex Court, to which I shall make reference little later. In the present case, emphasis is placed on Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act by the Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra. I find substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra that by virtue of Section 38C, the State, at any rate, will have "charge" on the property of the Company in liquidation for recovery of its dues under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, if not a first charge to the exclusion of the Secured Creditors and Workers. In other words, the charge on the property of Company in liquidation is created in favour of the State of Maharashtra relating to its dues, by operation of law. It is apposite to advert to Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, which defines Charge and would read thus : "100. Charges. - Where immoveable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge". The purport of Section 100 has been explained in the decisions of the Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corpn., reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 15 : 1995 (2) SCC. 519 as well as in International Coach Builders v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn., reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 395 . The purport of Section 100 has been explained in the decisions of the Apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corpn., reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 15 : 1995 (2) SCC. 519 as well as in International Coach Builders v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn., reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 395 . The argument canvassed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra is supported by the above provisions-that the State of Maharashtra has a "charge" over the property of the Company in liquidation and, by virtue of the said charge, it will have to be held that the State of Maharashtra is also a Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation, by operation of law though. It is relevant to note the expression "Secured Creditor" has not been defined in the Companies Act as such. On the other hand, having regard to the purport of Section 529 of the Companies Act, the provisions of Law of Insolvency governing the field will have to be applied. In that sense, it will be safe to advert to the definition of "Creditor" as provided in Section 2(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. The same reads thus : "Creditor" includes a decree holder." In Section 2(1)(a) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, "Creditor" is defined thus : "'Creditor' includes a decree-holder, 'debt' includes a judgment-debt, and debtor includes a judgment-debtor". Now, we would advert to the definition of "Secured Creditor" in the aforesaid Insolvency Acts. In Section 2(g) of the Act of 1909, "Secured Creditor" is defined thus : "'Secured Creditor' includes a landlord who under any enactment for the time being in force has a charge on and for the rent of that land" In Section 2(1)(e) of the Act of 1920, "Secured Creditor" is defined thus : "Secured Creditor' means a person holding a mortgage, charge or lien on the property of the debtor or any part thereof as a security for a debt due to him from the debtor". Applying the above provisions, it will have to be held that the State of Maharashtra is a Secured Creditor qua the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues arising under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Applying the above provisions, it will have to be held that the State of Maharashtra is a Secured Creditor qua the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues arising under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Assuming that the Counsel appearing for the Secured Creditors was justified in relying on the provisions of Sections 38(5) and 38B(1) of the Bombay Sales tax Act to contend that the said provisions would only postulate that the dues arising under the said Act can be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue-no more and no less. This argument clearly overlooks the statutory provision-Section 169 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said Section 169 reads thus : "169. Claims of State Government to have precedence over all others. - (1) The arrears of land revenue due on account of land shall be a paramount charge on the land and on every part thereof and shall have precedence over any other debt, demand or claim howsover, whether in respect of mortgage, judgment-decree, execution or attachment, or otherwise howsoever against any land or the holder thereof. (2) The claim of the State Government to any monies other than arrears of land revenue, but recoverable as a revenue demand under the provisions of thi Chapter, shall have priority over all unsecured claims against any land or holder thereof". Counsel for the Secured Creditors pressed into service sub-section (2) of the above provisions to contend that the State of Maharashtra would get precedence only over the unsecured claims and not the Secured Creditors and cannot be equated with them (Secured Creditors). However, this contention, to my mind, is completely misplaced. Because the said provision [sub-section (2)] pertains to recovery of any monies by the State Government "other than arrears of Land Revenue". As is seen earlier, by virtue of Section 38(5) and 38B(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the dues under the said Act, by legal fiction, have been treated as arrears of Land Revenue. If that is so, by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 169 of the Code, the State of Maharashtra shall have "paramount charge" on the assets of the Company in liquidation for recovery of the said amounts. If that is so, by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 169 of the Code, the State of Maharashtra shall have "paramount charge" on the assets of the Company in liquidation for recovery of the said amounts. In the ultimate analysis, I have no hesitation in taking the view that, on conjoint reading of all the relevant provisions referred to above, the State of Maharashtra will have to be treated as a Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation by operation of law, in relation to the dues recoverable by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. A priori, the claim of the State of Maharashtra for recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act will have to be considered along with the other Secured Creditors and Workers on pari passu basis by virtue of Section 529A of the Companies Act. To get over this position, stout reliance was placed by the Counsel appearing for the Secured Creditors on the decision of this Court reported in 1999 (Vol. 98) Company Cases 487, in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Official Liquidator, Wester Works Engineering Ltd. and others, wherein it has been held that the tax liabilities of the Company in liquidation cannot have any preference over the claim of the Secured Creditors and Workers. Indeed, such observation is made in this decision. But, on careful reading of the said decision, to my mind, it is an authority on the proposition, as was canvassed before that Court that the tax liability would get preference over the claim of Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation. That was an extreme proposition considered. However, as is rightly contended by the Counsel for the State of Maharashtra in the present case, the issue is not whether the State of Maharashtra would get preference over the claim of the Secured Creditors and Workers, but the question is whether the State of Maharashtra can be considered as a Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation, in relation to the dues, which were payable by the Company in liquidation under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Obviously, such a plea has not been examined in this decision. Obviously, such a plea has not been examined in this decision. I have already, with reference to the provisions extracted above, held that, on conjoint reading of the relevant provisions, the claim of the State of Maharashtra can be considered as one of the "Secured Creditors" of the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues, which were payable by the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and entitled for disbursement of its dues in accord with Section 529A of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Aurangabad and another v. Central Bank of India and another, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1831 . In the first place, this decision has been explained in the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. and others, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 694 . Besides, in the case of Collector of Aurangabad (supra), the question considered was whether the debt due to the Government in respect of the arrears of Sales Tax has any priority over other demands in respect of other private debts. Besides, this decision also adverts to the argument that the priority specified in Section 104 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act, 1317Fasli applies only in respect of Land Revenue and not in respect of other taxes. In the present case, however, the extreme argument that the Government is entitled to recover all arrears of Sales Tax in preference over the claim of the Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation is not pressed; but what is argued is, by operation of law, the State Government is like any other Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation and would, therefore, be entitled to recover all its dues in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act. Moreover, in view of the express provisions, referred to above, the decision of the Apex Court pressed into service by the Counsel for the Secured Creditors is of no avail. One more decision was relied on behalf of the Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation in the case of Polyolefins Industries Ltd. v. Kosmek Plastics Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 1999 (Volume 98) Company Cases 481. One more decision was relied on behalf of the Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation in the case of Polyolefins Industries Ltd. v. Kosmek Plastics Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 1999 (Volume 98) Company Cases 481. Even in this decision, the extreme proposition was canvassed-that the amount towards outstanding income tax was recoverable in preference to the claim of the Workmen of the Company in liquidation, which contention has been negatived. As mentioned earlier, that is not the point in issue in the present case. Now, we shall advert to the provisions of the Maharashtra Sales Tax on Works Contract (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 to find out as to what is the efficiency of the outstanding amount due and payable under the provisions of the said Act. It is apposite to refer to Section 9 of the said Act, which is relevant for our purposes. The same reads thus : "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act shall assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any interest or penalty payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or interest or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or interest or penalty payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, relating to returns, assessment, re-assessment, rectification, collection, forfeiture, registration of the transferee or any dealer liable to pay tax under this Act, imposition of the tax liability of a dealer or the transferee of or successor to, such dealer, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, special mode of recovery of tax, appeals, revisions, references, refunds, fines, penalties, charging or payment of interest, compounding of offences and the treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall, mutatis mutandis, apply accordingly. (2) All the provisions relating to offences, charging or payment of interest and penalties (including provisions relating to penalties in lieu of prosecution for an offence or in addition to the penalties or punishment for an offence) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act shall, mutatis mutandis, apply in relation to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and the enforcement of payment of the tax required to be collected under this Act or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, re-assessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if the tax payable under this Act were the tax payable under the Bombay Sale Tax Act". On plain language of the aforesaid provision, it is seen that the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act were to apply mutatis mutandis for the recovery of the dues payable and recovereable under this Act. Understood thus, the reasons already recorded in respect of the status of the State of Maharashtra qua the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues under the Bombay Sales Tax Act would apply proprio vigore. On that reasoning, it will have to be held that the State of Maharashtra is a Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues receivable by it under the provisions of the said Act as well. I shall now advert to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. It will be useful to advert to Section 9, as well as Section 17, of this Act. Section 9 reads thus : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. I shall now advert to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. It will be useful to advert to Section 9, as well as Section 17, of this Act. Section 9 reads thus : "9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties. - (1) The tax payable by any dealer under this Act on sales of goods effected by him in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, whether such sales fall within the clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 3, shall be levied by the Government of India and the tax so levied shall be collected by that Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2), in the State from which the movement of the goods commenced : Provided that, in the case of a sale of goods during their movement from one State to another, being a sale subsequent to the first sale in respect of the same goods and being also a sale which does not fall within sub-section (2) of Section 6, the tax shall be levied and collected - (a) where such subsequent sale has been effected by a registered dealer, in the State from which the registered dealer obtained or, as the case may be, could have obtained, the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods; and (b) where such subsequent sale has been effected by an unregistered dealer, in the State from which such subsequent sale has been effected. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the General Sales Tax Law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any interest or penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or interest or penalty by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or interest or penalty payable under the General Sales Tax Law of the State : and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the General Sales Tax Law of the State : and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business of the transferee of or successor to such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, rebates, penalties, charging or payment of interest, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly : Provided that if any State or part thereof is no General Sales Tax Law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in the behalf make necessary provision for all or any of the matters specified in this sub-section. (2A) All the provisions relating to offences interest and penalties (including provisions relating in lieu of prosecution for an offence but excluding the provisions relating to matters provided for in Section 10 and 10A) of the General Sales Tax Law of each State shall, with necessary modifications, apply, in relation to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and the enforcement of payment of any tax required to be collected under this Act in such State or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, re-assessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if the tax under this Act were a tax under such Sales Tax Law. (2B) If the tax payable by any dealer under this Act is not paid in time, the dealer shall be liable to pay interest for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions relating to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax, of the General Sales Tax Law of each State, shall apply in relation to due date for payment tax, rate of interest of delayed payment of tax, and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax under this Act in such States as if the tax and the interest payable under this Act were a tax and an interest under such Sales Tax Law. (3) The proceeds in any financial year of any tax, including any interest or penalty, levied or collected under this Act in any State (other than a Union Territory on behalf of the Government of India) shall be assigned to that State and shall be retained by it; and the proceeds attributable to Union Territories shall form part of the Consolidated Fund of India". Section 17 of the Central Sales Tax Act reads thus : "17. Company in Liquidation. - (1) Every person - (a) who is the liquidator of any company which is being wound up, whether under the orders of a court or otherwise; or (b) who has been appointed the receiver of any assets of a company (hereinafter referred to as the liquidator) shall, within thirty days after he has become such liquidator, give notice of his appointment as such to the appropriate authority. (2) The appropriate authority shall, after making such inquiry or calling for such information as it may deem fit, notify to the liquidator within three months from the date on which he receives notice of the appointment of the liquidator the amount which, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, would be sufficient to provide for any tax which is then, or is likely, thereafter to become, payable by the company. (3) The liquidator shall not part with any of the assets of the company or the properties in his hands until he has been notified by the appropriate authority under sub-section (2) and on being so notified, shall set aside an amount equal to the amount notified and, until he so sets aside such amount, shall not part with any of the assets of the company or the properties in his hands : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall debar the liquidator from parting with such assets or properties in compliance with any order of a court or for the purpose of the payment of the tax payable by the company under this Act or for making any payment to secured creditors whose debts are entitled under law to priority of payment over debt due to Government on the date of liquidation or for meeting such costs and expense of the winding up of the company as are in the opinion of the appropriate authority reasonable. (4) If the liquidator fails to give the notice in accordance with sub-section (1) or fails to set aside the amount as required by, or parts with any of the assets of the company or the properties in his hands in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (3), he shall be personally liable for the payment of the tax which the company would be liable to pay : Provided that if the amount of any tax payable by the company is notified under sub-section (2), the personal liability of the liquidator under this sub-section shall be to the extent of such amount. (5) Where there are more liquidators than one, the obligations and liabilities attached to the liquidator under this section shall attach to all the liquidators jointly and severally. (6) The provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force". By virtue of Section 9, in particular, sub-section (2) thereof, the scheme for recovery of dues arising under the Central Sales Tax Act is the same, as is applicable by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. By virtue of Section 9, in particular, sub-section (2) thereof, the scheme for recovery of dues arising under the Central Sales Tax Act is the same, as is applicable by virtue of the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. If that is so, for recovery of dues even under this Act, if it were to be treated as arrear of land revenue by virtue of Section 169(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the State of Maharashtra will have "paramount charge" over the assets of the Company in liquidation. Moreover, it is possible to take the view that the provisions of Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act can also be invoked, so that the State of Maharashtra will have "charge" over the assets of the Company in liquidation. Even in that case, on the self-same reasoning indicated hereinabove, while construing the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the State of Maharashtra, being incharge of the recovery of dues under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, will have to be treated as Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation. Besides the view that I have taken as above, I will be fortified in allowing the claim of the State of Maharashtra to be treated as "Secured Creditor" in relation to the dues arising under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, in the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Imperial Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. (in Liquidation) v. Income Tax Officer, reported in 1996 (Volume 85) 555. At page 567 of the said decision, while construing the purport of Section 178 of the Income Tax Act, which is pari materia Section 17 of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Apex Court has held that - "on a total view of the relevant statutory provisions, it appears to us, that the Income Tax Department, is treated as a "Secured Creditor". This dictum of the Apex Court would bind this Court. This dictum of the Apex Court would bind this Court. Besides the above observation of the Apex Court, it is relevant to note that in the penultimate paragraph of the same decision, the attention of the Apex Court was specifically invited to Section 17 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which is similar to the provisions of Section 178 of the Income Tax Act, and, after noting the said aspect, the Apex Court has observed that-it was of the view that the interpretatin placed by it in relation to Section 178 of the Income Tax Act should govern cases arising under Section 17 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as well. Indeed, this decision has been referred to in the judgment of this Court in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra). However, this aspect dealt with by the Apex Court has not been adverted to in the said decision. In the case of Syndicate Bank (supra), true it is that this Court has observed that the Apex Court in the case of Imperial Chit Fund (supra) was not called upon to answer the effect of Section 529A of the Companies Act, in relation to the claim of Workers of the Company in liquidation. Even so, the dictum of the Apex Court that on a total view of the relevant statutory provisions, the Department is treated as a "Secured Creditor" will bind this Court more particularly because that observation is made in the context of various relevant provisions adverted to in the decision, including Section 529A of the Act, which is reproduced at 561. No decision has been brought to my notice that the said dictum of the Apex Court has been overruled by the Apex Court in any later decision. Assuming that the dictum of the Apex Court, referred to above, is an obiter, even so, the obiter of the Apex Court would bind this Court. Understood thus, it is not open either to contend or even to examine the plea that the State of Maharashtra cannot be treated as Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation. Assuming that the dictum of the Apex Court, referred to above, is an obiter, even so, the obiter of the Apex Court would bind this Court. Understood thus, it is not open either to contend or even to examine the plea that the State of Maharashtra cannot be treated as Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation. On the above reasoning, the claim of the State of Maharashtra, or, for that matter, the State of Karnataka, arising under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act will have to be considered along with other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis on the assumption that the State of Maharashtra, or, the State of Karnataka, as the case may be, are Secured Creditors of the Company in liquidation. That takes me to the claim of the State of Karnataka in Company Application No. 264 of 2003. The claim is split in three components. The first is on the basis of dues payable by the Company in liquidation under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. The second is on the basis of the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957; and lastly, on the basis of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. We shall first refer to the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. Section 8 thereof is the relevant provision for our purpose. Section 8 reads thus : 8. Payment and recovery of tax. - (1) The tax under this Act shall be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and subject to such conditions and payment of such interest and within such time, as may be prescribed. (2) If default is made in making payment in accordance with sub-section (1), - (i) the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the property of the person or persons liable to pay tax under this Act; (ii) the person or persons liable to pay the tax or any other amount due under this Act shall pay an interest equal to two per cent of the amount of tax or any other amount due remaining unpaid for each month after the expiry of the time specified under sub-section (1). Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of clause (ii), the interest payable for a part of a month shall be proportionately determined. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where the amount of penalty does not exceed rupees five lakh, the Commissioner and in any other case, the State Government may subject to such conditions as may be prescribed remit the whole or any part of the interest payable in respect of any period by any person or class of persons. (4) Any tax assessed, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered, - (a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue; or (b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property of such dealer or any other person by the prescribed officer in accordance with such Rules as may be prescribed; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate, as if it were a fine imposed by him. Provided that where a dealer who has appealed or applied for revision of any order made under this Act and has complied with an order made by the Appellate or the Revising Authority in regard to the payment of tax or other amount no proceedings for recovery under this sub-section shall be made or continued until the disposal of such appeal or application for revision". On plain language of Section 8(2), it is seen that dues payable under the provisions of this Act shall become immediately due and shall be a "charge" on the property of the person or persons liable to pay tax under this Act. If that is so, the claim of State of Karnataka for recovery of dues which were payable by the Company in liquidation under the provisions of this Act will have to be treated as one of Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation. Suffice it to observe that the reasons already indicated in the earlier part of this judgment in relation to the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act as to the efficiency of "charge" on the property of the Company in liquidation will apply proprio vigor even to this Legislation. Suffice it to observe that the reasons already indicated in the earlier part of this judgment in relation to the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act as to the efficiency of "charge" on the property of the Company in liquidation will apply proprio vigor even to this Legislation. Understood thus, the claim of the State of Karnataka in relation to the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, will have to be treated as one of Secured Creditors, so as to be considered along with the claim of other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis by virtue of Section 529A of the Companies Act. We shall now advert to the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Section 13 of the said Act will be of relevance to us. Section 13 reads thus : "13. Payment and Recovery of Tax. - (1) The Tax or any other amount due under this Act shall be paid in such manner in such instalments, subject to such conditions, on payment of such interest and within such time, as may be prescribed : Provided that where the amount paid falls short of the aggregate of the tax or any other amount due and interest payable, the amount so paid shall first be adjusted towards interest payable and the balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards the tax or any other amount due. (2) If default is made in making payment in accordance with sub-section (1), - (i) the whole of the amount outstanding on the date of default shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties of the person or persons liable to pay the tax or any other amount due under this Act; and (ii) the person or persons liable to pay the tax other than tax payable in advance for any year under Sections 12 and 12B or any other amount due under this Act shall pay an interest equal to two percent of the amount of tax or any other amount due remaining unpaid for each month after the expiry of the time specified under sub-section (1). Explanation I. - For purposes of clause (ii), the interest payable for a part of a month shall be proportionately determined. Explanation II. Explanation I. - For purposes of clause (ii), the interest payable for a part of a month shall be proportionately determined. Explanation II. - For the purpose of this sub-section non-payment during any period during which recovery of any tax or other amount due under the Act is stayed by an order of any Authority or Court in any Appeal or other proceedings disputing such tax or amount, shall be deemed to be a 'default'. (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where the amount of interest does not exceed rupees five lakhs the Commissioner and in other cases the State Government may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, remit the whole or any part of the interest payable in respect of any period by any person or class of persons. (3) Any tax assessed, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or any other person may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered - (a) as if it were an arrear of land revenue, or (aa) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property of such dealer or any other person by the Assessing Authority or the prescribed officer in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed; (aaa) as if it were an arrear of Excise Revenue under the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966), in the case of a dealer engaged in the manufacture or sale of liquor including beer, spirit and alcohol; or (b) notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), on application to any Magistrate, by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him : Provided that where a dealer or other person who has appealed or applied for revision of any other made under this Act and has complied with an order made by the Appellate or the Revising Authority in regard to the payment of the tax or other amount, no proceedings for recovery under this sub-section shall be taken or continued until the disposal of such Appeal or Application for revision. (4) The High Court may either suo motu or on an application by the Commissione or any person aggrieved by the order revise any order made by a Magistrate under clause (b) of sub-section (3)". (4) The High Court may either suo motu or on an application by the Commissione or any person aggrieved by the order revise any order made by a Magistrate under clause (b) of sub-section (3)". Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of this Act is similar to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, extracted above. By virtue of this provision, the State of Karnataka has a "charge" on the property of the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues, which were payable by the Company in liquidation under the provisions of this Act. If that is so, for the reasons already indicated earlier, the State of Karnataka will have to be treated as "Secured Creditor" of the Company in liquidation and its claim for recovery of dues under the provisions of this Act will have to be considered along with other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis. There is additional reason to answer the issue in favour of the State of Karnataka. By virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, or sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, the dues to be recovered under the respective Acts are to be treated as if it were an arrear of Land Revenue. The mode of recovery of arrears of Land Revenue is referable to Section 158 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said Section 158 reads thus : "158. Claim of state Government to have precedence over all others. - (1) The claim of the State Government to any moneys recoverable under the provisions of this Chapter shall have precedence over any other debt, demand or claim whatsoever whether in respect of mortgage, judgment-decree, execution or attachment, or otherwise howsoever, against any land or the holder thereof. (2) In all cases, the Land Revenue for the current Revenue Year, of land for agricultural purposes, if not otherwise discharged, shall be recoverable, in preference to all other claims, from the crop of such land". It is relevant to note that Section 158 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was directly a matter in issue before the Apex Court in Dena Bank's case (supra). It is relevant to note that Section 158 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was directly a matter in issue before the Apex Court in Dena Bank's case (supra). In paragraph 15 of this decision, the Court, after considering the general principle regarding the doctrine of priority under the Common Law and specifically with reference to Section 158 of the Act, has held that the State would have precedence over any other debt, demand or claim whatsoever including in respect of mortgage. Indeed, in this judgment, the Court was not called upon to examine the purport of Section 529A of the Companies Act. Suffice it to hold that in view of the express provisions in both the Karnataka Acts and in the light of the observations made in the abovesaid reported decision of the Apex Court, the State of Karnataka will have to be treated as any other "Secured Creditor" of the Company in liquidation by operation of law. Once that conclusion is reached, the State of Karnataka would be entitled for consideration of its claim arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, along with the claim of other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis by virtue of Section 529A of the Companies Act. Insofar as the status of the State of Karnataka in relation to the claim under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned, the reasons which are already indicated above while considering the claim of the State of Maharashtra in relation to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act would apply proprio vigore. Even this claim of the State of Karnataka will have to be treated as claim of any other Secured Creditor of the Company in liquidation along with the Workers and other Secured Creditors under Section 529A of the Companies Act. That takes me to the additional argument canvassed on behalf of the Secured Creditor in the Application preferred by the State of Karnataka that the provisions of the Karnataka Acts cannot be invoked in relation to the assets or properties of the Company in liquidation situated outside the State of Karnataka. It was argued that if such a claim was to be accepted, it would result in operation of the State Legislation being executed or enforced outside the territory of the State. It was argued that if such a claim was to be accepted, it would result in operation of the State Legislation being executed or enforced outside the territory of the State. To buttress this contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC. 2094 in the case of R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., para 20 thereof. To my mind, the ratio of this decision has no bearing on the issue that arises for my consideration. In the present case, however, the State of Karnataka is, in fact, claiming to settle its dues from the sale proceeds to be realised from all the properties or assets of the Company in liquidation, which may or may not be located outside the State of Karnataka. The claim of the State of Karnataka is qua the corpus available in the hands of the Official Liquidator in relation to the Company in liquidation for disbursement of the claims and not on the properties of the Company in liquidation as such. Understood thus, the State of Karnataka cannot be non-suited on the argument that the amounts to be recovered would be in relation to the assets of the Company in liquidation situated outside the State of Karnataka. The claim against the Company in liquidation is founded on the transactions which had taken place in the State of Karnataka. That is not a matter in dispute. As the Company has gone into liquidation, the question of recovery of the dues under the provisions of the Karnataka Act has come up for consideration. The fact remains that the arrears pertain to dues under the provisions of the Karnataka Acts and it is not with reference to the assets of the Company in liquidation outside the State of Karnataka, but by virtue of legal fiction, it will have to be deemed that the State of Karnataka is a "Secured Creditor" of the Company in liquidation. Besides the decisions, which are already referred to above, I will also advert to the decisions, which were pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the Applicants. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 15 : (1995) 2 SCC 519 in the case of State Bank of Bikaner v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 15 : (1995) 2 SCC 519 in the case of State Bank of Bikaner v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation. This is a decision of Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. The Apex Court considered the provisions of Section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which is similar to the provisions of the Maharashtra Act. The Apex Court has observed that the State of Rajasthan will have first charge on the property in question and proceeded to answer the issue in favour of the State of Rajasthan. It is relevant to note that in paragraph 8 of this decision, the Apex Court went on to observe that even an earlier private mortgage cannot defeat the statutory right accrued to the State of Rajasthan of First Charge in relation to the property in question. The observations made in paragraph 10 of this decision are also useful. It is not necessary to elaborate on this decision for the view that I have already taken that the provisions of the Maharashtra Act, as well as the Karnataka Act, render the status of State of Maharashtra, or, the State of Karnataka, as the case may be, as that of a "Secured Creditor" of the Company in liquidation. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai v. Indian Oil Corporation and another, reported in (1998) 2 Comp.L.J. 377 (SC). In this decision, the Court has noticed Section 529A of the Companies Act and yet, while construing Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, has held that the Port Trust will have "paramount lien" and would override the claim of the Secured Creditors. In the present case, however, such extreme argument has not been advanced, by the State Government contends that its claim may be considered along with the claim of other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Imperial Chit Funds (supra). In the present case, however, such extreme argument has not been advanced, by the State Government contends that its claim may be considered along with the claim of other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Imperial Chit Funds (supra). I have already adverted to this decision in the earlier part of this judgment and the relevant enunciation which I have followed in the present case is that the claim of the Department will have to be treated as a "Secured Creditor" qua the Company in liquidation in relation to the dues atleast under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. Reliance is also placed on a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of International Coach Builders Ltd. v. Karnataka State Financial Corpn. reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 395. Even this judgment considers the argument that the claim of the State Financial Corporation will override the claim of the Workers. As mentioned earlier, in the present case, the argument is modulated on behalf of the State Government to contend that their claim falls within the purview of Section 529A of the Companies Act, so as to be considered along with other Secured Creditors and Workers on pari passu basis. For the reasons recorded above, all the Company Applications are partly allowed with direction to the Official Liquidator to reckon the claim of the State of Maharahstra, as well as the State of Karnataka, as the case may be, as "Secured Creditor" of the Company in liquidation along with the other Secured Creditors and Workers of the Company in liquidation on pari passu basis in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act. I am told that while these Company Applications were pending in this Court, the Official Liquidator has already offered to make payment to the State Bank of India, but the cheque for the sanctioned amount was not delivered. In view of the above directions, the Official Liquidator to re-compute the claim of the respective Secured Creditors by including the claim of the State of Maharashtra and State of Karnataka as Secured Creditors and also of the Workers afresh and only thereafter disburse the amounts to the respective persons on pari passu basis in accord with Section 529A of the Companies Act. All concerned to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer of this Court. Certified copy expedited.