Judgment :- Petitioner-Bank has filed this Writ Petition to issue Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Tamil Nadu Govt. Gazette No.01 dated 01. 2007 (Vellore District) and consequential order bearing No.NK A3/2310/2002 dated 13. 2007 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the property situate at Plot No.97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet and to direct the 1st Respondent to stop further proceedings from recovery of any arrears of sales tax payable by Tajura Leathers – 2nd Respondent from out of the sale proceeds which have been appropriated by the Petitioner-bank. 2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:- .(i) Second Respondent - a partnership concern has availed various credit facilities from the Petitioner-bank. As a security for the due repayment of the loan, 2nd Respondent offered its immovable properties – [1] (i) Plot No.97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, (ii) Mukuntharayapuram-2548 sq.ft. S.No.476/5B and [2] S.Nos.114/4 and 114/5 situated at Manthangal village, Ranipet Town as its security by availing Equitable Mortgage apart from the hypothecation of Plant and Machinery. In addition to the above, three immovable properties of the guarantors were also mortgaged with the Bank. As the company and its guarantors/mortgagors failed to repay the dues and committed default, Petitioner filed O.A.No.1275/99 before D.R.T. Chennai for recovery of Rs.43,20,860/- as on 12. 1999. The said O.A. Is said to be still pending before DRT, Chennai. .(ii) As there was enormous delay in recovery of the dues, even through DRT, after the implementation of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), bank issued a notice dated 01.08.2005 u/s.13(2) of the said Act to the 2nd Respondent, its guarantors/mortgagors for the recovery of Rs.89,36,269.25 together with interest from 33. 2005 till payment in full. (iii) Since there was a default inspite of the said notice, bank invoked the provisions of Sec.13(4) of the Act and took possession of the properties on 21. 2007 mortgaged to them and publication was effected. Possession was taken under due process of law. .(iv) Second Respondent/guarantors/mortgagors did not take any steps to settle the dues of the bank, bank had issued sale notice and published the same in the newspaper on 12. 2007. Sale took place on 03. 2007. All the immovable properties mortgaged to the bank were sold in the public auction for a total sum of Rs.62.91 lakhs. .(iv) Second Respondent/guarantors/mortgagors did not take any steps to settle the dues of the bank, bank had issued sale notice and published the same in the newspaper on 12. 2007. Sale took place on 03. 2007. All the immovable properties mortgaged to the bank were sold in the public auction for a total sum of Rs.62.91 lakhs. Bank had also issued Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser. Similarly, 2nd Respondents property comprised in S.No.476/5B was also sold and registered in favour of third party purchaser. (v) Property purchased by the 3rd Respondent comprised in Plot No.97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet measuring an extent of 19520 sq.ft. together with shed was sold on 03. 2007 for Rs.19.23 lakhs and the auction purchaser-3rd Respondent remitted the money within the stipulated period and the sale certificate has been issued in its name. .(vi) By the impugned order bearing No.NK.A3.2310/2002 dated 13. 2007, 1st Respondent informed the Petitioner that 2nd Respondent company has committed default in payment of sales tax of a sum of Rs.37,09,966/-and therefore, they are invoking the provisions of Sec.34(2) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short TNGST Act) and as the company had committed default, a sum of Rs.37,09,966/-from and out of the sale proceeds should be remitted to the 1st Respondent as contemplated u/s.24(3) of TNGST Act. (vii) On 01. 2007 in the Vellore District Gazette, Government had gazetted a notification about the attachment of the properties. By the impugned proceedings dated 13. 2007, 1st Respondent informed the Petitioner that 2nd Respondent has committed default in payment of sales tax of a sum of Rs.37,09,966/-and therefore, they are invoking the provisions u/s.34 of TNGST Act and as the company had committed default, a sum of Rs.37,09,966/-should be remitted to the 1st Respondent as contemplated u/s.24(3) of TNGST Act. (viii) Case of the Petitioner is that the action of the 1st Respondent is contrary to law and the Judgment laid down by the Supreme Court reported in Transcores case [2006 (5) CTC 753]. The action of the 1st Respondent attaching the property after bank had taken possession of the same on 112. 2006 is not legally tenable and the 1st Respondent bank ought to have seen that the mortgage in favour of the bank was created as early as on 13. 1991 and secured creditor has a prior charge. The action of the 1st Respondent attaching the property after bank had taken possession of the same on 112. 2006 is not legally tenable and the 1st Respondent bank ought to have seen that the mortgage in favour of the bank was created as early as on 13. 1991 and secured creditor has a prior charge. It is the further case of the Petitioner that only after adjustment of its dues, the excess balance if any, can be claimed by the 1st Respondent. According to the Petitioner, bank having initiated action under SARFAESI Act will have priority and SARFAESI Act being a special enactment and a later enactment will have priority over and above the provisions of TNGST Act. Challenging the G.O.No.1 dated 01. 2007, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the same. 3. First Respondent-Commercial Tax Officer has filed the counter stating that 2nd Respondent firm had paid taxes only upto the year 1990-1991, but failed to pay taxes due for the year 1991-1992 and a sum of Rs.37,09,966/-is due. 2nd Respondent had closed their business w.e.f. 04. 1999 and the arrears of sales tax had not been paid. 2nd Respondents concern had properties at No.97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet and for the above said arrears, notices were issued to the 2nd Respondent in Form-I and IV on 15. 2005. After issuing auction sale notices, sale notification proposing auction of the property of the defaulter was issued on 23. 2007 and the same was also published in the Tamilnadu Government Gazette No.1 dated 05.01.2007. Meanwhile, it was found that the Petitioner-bank had conducted auction sale of the property which was attached for arrears due to the Government to 3rd Respondent Surya Leather Depot. Therefore, 1st Respondent issued communication dated 13. 2007 demanding payment of arrears of tax of Rs.37,09,966/- and issuance of notice is in accordance with the provisions of TNGST Act. 4. Third Respondent-auction purchaser has filed counter stating that auction under SARFAESI Act was held on 03. 2007 and amongst five bidders, 3rd Respondent was declared as successful bidder for a sum of Rs.19.23 lakhs and 3rd Respondent has paid initial deposit of 25% on the same day. According to the 3rd Respondent, possession of the property was given to them on 13. 2007 and sale certificate dated 13. 2007 was also issued in its favour. 2007 and amongst five bidders, 3rd Respondent was declared as successful bidder for a sum of Rs.19.23 lakhs and 3rd Respondent has paid initial deposit of 25% on the same day. According to the 3rd Respondent, possession of the property was given to them on 13. 2007 and sale certificate dated 13. 2007 was also issued in its favour. It is further averred that there were no encumbrances shown in the Encumbrance Certificate to show that the property was attached by the Sales Tax department. According to the 3rd Respondent, they are the bonafide purchaser of the property and not being aware of the attachment of the property. 5. Laying emphasis upon Sec.35 of SARFAESI Act and Transcores case, Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, provisions of Sec.13(4) shall override the local law and the action initiated by the Petitioner-bank under SARFAESI Act will have priority over and above the provisions of TNGST Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further contended that crown debt cannot prevail over the secured creditor and that preferential right of crown would be subservient to the rights of a secured creditor and the right of the bank as a mortgagee will prevail upon. 6. Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2 has contended that as per Sec.24(1) and (2) of TNGST Act, in the event of default made by any dealer in respect of taxes assessed under the Act, the outstanding amount shall become immediately due and shall be a charge on the properties and any amount due under the Act shall have priority over all other claims against the properties of dealer. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent further submitted that as per Sec.24 of TNGST Act, by operation of law a statutory charge has been created on the property and therefore, SARFAESI Act can have no overriding effect over such statutory charge. 7. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has contended that after sale made under SARFAESI Act and when sale certificate was issued, the auction purchaser takes the property free of all encumbrances, known or unknown to the creditor. Laying emphasis upon Sec.35 of the Act and observations of Transcores case, learned Spl. 7. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent has contended that after sale made under SARFAESI Act and when sale certificate was issued, the auction purchaser takes the property free of all encumbrances, known or unknown to the creditor. Laying emphasis upon Sec.35 of the Act and observations of Transcores case, learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted that in view of non-obstante clause, the sale under SARFAESI Act will prevail. It was further argued that if sale made under SARFAESI Act is subject to any other encumbrance, it would defeat the object and purpose of Securitisation Act. 8. Registering the contention of bank, Mr. V. Suthakar, learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent further submitted that crowns right is always subject to the claim of secured debtor and any sale made under Securitisation Act is free of all charges including the statutory charges. 9. In the light of the above contentions, the following questions arise for consideration:- .(1) Whether the crownspreferential right or a crown debt is subservient to the right of the secured creditor? .(2) Whether the sale made under Securitisation Act is absolute and free of all encumbrances which are known and unknown to the secured creditor? 10. Even while O.A.No.1275/1999 for recovery of Rs.43,20,860/- was pending before DRT, Chennai, after issuance of notice u/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act, bank invoked the provisions of Sec.13(4) of the Act and said to have taken possession of the mortgaged properties. After advertising for sale, the property was sold on 03. 2007. All the immovable properties mortgaged to the bank were sold in the public auction for a total sum of Rs.62.91 lakhs. The subject matter of dispute i.e. Plot No.97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet measuring an extent of 19520 sq.ft. was sold for a sum of Rs.19.23 lakhs to the highest bidder – 3rd Respondent. 11. The question whether withdrawal of O.A. prior to taking recourse under Securitisation Act is no more res-integra, in 2006 (5) CTC 753 [Transcore v. Union of India and another), Supreme Court has held as under:- "13)...... The NPA Act is inspired by the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ("SFC Act"), in particular Sections 29 and 31 thereof. The question whether withdrawal of O.A. prior to taking recourse under Securitisation Act is no more res-integra, in 2006 (5) CTC 753 [Transcore v. Union of India and another), Supreme Court has held as under:- "13)...... The NPA Act is inspired by the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ("SFC Act"), in particular Sections 29 and 31 thereof. The NPA Act proceeds on the basis that the liability of the borrower to repay has crystallized; that the debt has become due and that on account of delay the account of the borrower has become substandard and non-performing. The object of the DRT Act as well as the NPA Act is recovery of debt by non-adjudicatory process. These two enactments provide for cumulative remedies to the secured creditors. By removing all fetters on the rights of the secured creditor, he is given a right to choose one or more of the cumulative remedies. The object behind Section 13 of the NPA Act and Section 17 r/w Section 19 of the DRT Act is the same, namely, recovery of debt. Conceptually, there is no inherent or implied inconsistency between the two remedies. Therefore, as stated above, the object behind the enactment of the NPA Act is to accelerate the process of recovery of debt and to remove deficiencies/obstacles in the way of realisation of debt under the DRT Act by the enactment of the NPA Act, 2002." "22. On reading Section 13(2), which is the heart of the controversy in the present case, one finds that if a borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor, makes any default in repayment of secured debt and his account in respect of such debt is classified as non-performing asset then the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge his liabilities within sixty days from the date of the notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights given in Section 13(4). Reading Section 13(2) it is clear that the said sub-section proceeds on the basis that the borrower is already under a liability and further that, his account in the books of the bank or FI is classified as sub-standard, doubtful or loss. The NPA Act comes into force only when both these conditions are satisfied. Reading Section 13(2) it is clear that the said sub-section proceeds on the basis that the borrower is already under a liability and further that, his account in the books of the bank or FI is classified as sub-standard, doubtful or loss. The NPA Act comes into force only when both these conditions are satisfied. Section 13 (2) proceeds on the basis that the debt has become due. It proceeds on the basis that the account of the borrower in the books of bank/FI, which is an asset of the bank/FI, has become non-performing. Therefore, there is no scope of any dispute regarding the liability. There is a difference between accrual of liability, determination of liability and liquidation of liability. Section 13(2) deals with liquidation of liability. Section 13 deals with enforcement of security interest, therefore, the remedies of enforcement of security interest under the NPA Act and the DRT Act are complementary to each other. There is no inherent or implied inconsistency between these two remedies under the two different Acts. Therefore, the doctrine of election has no application in this case. ..." 12. Second Respondents firm had paid taxes upto the year 1990-91, but failed to pay taxes due for the year 1991-92. Calling for accounts, by the order dated 312. 2001, sales tax payable was assessed at Rs.37,09,966/-. Assessment order and demand notice in Form-54 were issued. Notice of final assessment in Form-U, Form-B3,Form-N3 and Form-54 were issued on the same day 312. 2001. 13. Learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) has contended that by operation of law a statutory charge has been created and in view of the priority conferred on the liability arising under the Act, State is entitled to recover the statutory dues settled in preference to all other creditors. Whether secured or unsecured notwithstanding the existence of any right under mortgage anterior in point of time. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-bank inter alia raised the following contentions: " There being a conflict u/s.24 of TNGST Act and Sec.35 of Securitisation Act, Securitisation Act being a Central Act must prevail. " Even otherwise Securitisation Act being a later enactment having been enacted in the year 2002 must prevail over TNGST Act, 1959. " U/s.24 of TNGST Act, State Government can claim priority only over the unsecured debts. " Even otherwise Securitisation Act being a later enactment having been enacted in the year 2002 must prevail over TNGST Act, 1959. " U/s.24 of TNGST Act, State Government can claim priority only over the unsecured debts. But the bank being a secured creditor, bank has first and exclusive charge over the properties of the company and has priority over the sale tax dues. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-bank placed reliance upon (2000) 5 SCC 694 [Dena Bank v. Bhikha Bhai Praphydas Parekh & Co. and others); (2000) 4 SCC 406 [Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another]; 2006 (5) CTC 753 [Transcore v. Union of India and another]; 2006 (3) CTC 529 [Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, rep. by its Vice President v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as the Liquidator of SIV Industries Ltd.(in liquidation)]; (2007) 139 Comp. Cases 302 (Mad) [Misons Leather Ltd. v. Canara Bank]; (2007) 5 MLJ 986 [Ramco Super Leathers Ltd. rep. by its Director v. UCO Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer, IBB, Chennai and another];(2007) 5 MLJ 1100 (SC) [Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India] and 2008-2-L.W. 381 [M/s.Lakshmi Shankar Mills (P) Ltd. Kallai v. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Madurai and others]. 15. The learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) would submit that Securitisation Act is an Act to regulate the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest. The learned Spl. Government Pleader further contended that two enactments deal with entirely different subjects and operate in different fields. According to him, there is no conflict in Sec.24 of TNGST Act and Sec.35 of Securitisation Act which is only a procedural enactment and the statutory charge will have priority over all other claims against the property. In support of his contention, learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) placed reliance upon 96 STC 612 (SC) [State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and others]; 113 STC 145 (Mad) [Central Bank of India v. State of Tamil Nadu and another]; 134 STC 562 (Mad) [State of Tamil Nadu and another v. M.Cauvery Ammal]; 120 STC 610 (SC) [Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. and others];(2006) 148 STC 32 (Bom) [Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others) and 2006 (5) CTC 753 [Transcore v. Union of India and another]. 16. and others];(2006) 148 STC 32 (Bom) [Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others) and 2006 (5) CTC 753 [Transcore v. Union of India and another]. 16. The learned counsel for the Petitioner-bank and 3rd Respondent contended that Sec.35 of SARFAESI Act gives overriding effect to SARFAESI Act with all other laws, if other laws are inconsistent with SARFAESI Act. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as far as enforcement of security interest is concerned SARFAESI Act is a special law which will override any other law and Placed much reliance upon the decision 2006 (5) CTC 753 [ Transcore v. Union of India and another]. Noting importance of Sec.35 of the Act in Transcores case, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "In our view, Section 17(4) shows that the secured creditor is free to take recourse to any of the measures under Section 13(4) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, e.g., for the sake of argument, if in the given case the measures undertaken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) comes in conflict with, let us say the provision under the State land revenue law, then notwithstanding such conflict, the provision of Section 13(4) shall override the local law. This position also stands clarified by Section 35 of the NPA Act which states that the provisions of NPA Act shall override all other laws which are inconsistent with the NPA Act. Section 35 is also important from another angle. As stated above, the NPA Act is not inherently or impliedly inconsistent with the DRT Act in terms of remedies for enforcement of securities. Section 35 gives an overriding effect to the NPA Act with all other laws if such other laws are inconsistent with the NPA Act. As far as the present case is concerned, the remedies are complimentary to each other and, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application to the present case." 17. A non-obstante clause confers a power to the law, to the effect that if any comes in the way of enforcing the provisions of the law, such other provisions of law cannot be given effect to. Ordinary rule of construction is that where there are two non obstante clauses, the latter shall prevail. A non-obstante clause confers a power to the law, to the effect that if any comes in the way of enforcing the provisions of the law, such other provisions of law cannot be given effect to. Ordinary rule of construction is that where there are two non obstante clauses, the latter shall prevail. But it is equally well settled that ultimate conclusion would depend upon the limited context of the statute. 18. In (2006) 12 SCC 642 (Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd.), Supreme Court considered the question whether provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would prevail over the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Spl. Provisions) Act 1985 (SICA). Observing that the endeavour of the Court would, however, always be to adopt a rule of harmonious construction, Supreme Court has held as follows:- "62. In Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal (1977) 1 SCC 750 , this Court opined: "When two or more laws operate in the same field and each contains a non obstante clause stating that its provisions will override those of any other law, stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since statutory interpretation has no conventional protocol, cases of such conflict have to be decided in reference to the object and purpose of the laws under consideration." 19. In (2006) 10 SCC 452 : (2006) 5 Scale 27 [ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Sidco Leathers Ltd.], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "36. The non obstante nature of a provision although may be of wide amplitude, the interpretative process thereof must be kept confined to the legislative policy. Only because the dues of the workmen and the debts due to the secured creditors are treated pari passu with each other, the same by itself, in our considered view, would not lead to the conclusion that the concept of inter se priorities amongst the secured creditors had thereby been intended to be given a total go-by. 37. A non obstante clause must be given effect to, to the extent Parliament intended and not beyond the same." 20. In (2005) 2 SCC 638 [Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal] while dealing with the non obstante clause in two statutes the Supreme Court has held that when both statutes containing non obstante clause are special statutes, an endeavour should be made to give effect to both of them. In case of conflict, the later shall prevail. In (2005) 2 SCC 638 [Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal] while dealing with the non obstante clause in two statutes the Supreme Court has held that when both statutes containing non obstante clause are special statutes, an endeavour should be made to give effect to both of them. In case of conflict, the later shall prevail. There cannot be any doubt about the aforesaid legal position. In my considered view, there is no conflict in Section 35 of the Securitisation Act and Section 24 of TNGST Act. There is no inconsistency and both provisions can be given effect to without any difficulty. 21. The learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) has contended that Sec.35 of the Act and the observation of the Transcores case are not applicable. His submission is that Sec.24(1) and (2) of TNGST Act gives precedence to the sales tax dues and such dues have priority over other charges. 22. The question falling for consideration is whether SAFAESI Act will prevail upon the statutory charge created for the sales tax payable is the point for consideration. The point to be resolved is whether Sec.35 of Securitisation Act is inconsistent with Sec.24 (2) of TNGST Act and consequentially whether Sec.35 of Securitisation Act would override Sec.24 of TNGST Act? 23. As held by the Supreme Court in Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd case [ (2006) 12 SCC 642 )], the endeavour of the court would, however, always be to adopt a rule of harmonious construction. Considering the object of Securitisation Act vis-à-vis Bomaby Sales Tax Act and observing that two enactments operate in different fields and Sec.38C of Bombay Sales Tax Act is not overridden by Sec.35 of Securitisation Act, in 2006 [148] STC 32 (Bom) [Thane Tanata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others), Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held as under:- 12. The Securitisation Act came into effect from December 17, 2002. Inter alia, the object for enactment of the said Act is to empower the banks and financial institutions in India to take possession of securities and sell them without pursuing the cumbersome legal remedy provided in the Civil procedure Code or for that matter the special remedy provided under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The necessity of enactment of the Securitisation Act arose as the Legislature found that the legal framework relating to commercial transactions has not kept pace with the changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms. The Narasimhan Committee I and II and the Andhyaryjina Committee constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of examining banking sector reforms considered the need for changes in the legal system in respect of the said areas. These Committees suggested amongst others, enactment of a new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without the intervention of the Court. The recommendations of these Committees led to the enactment of the Securitisation Act." 13. Section 13 of the Securitisation Act provides for enforcement of the security interest by the secured creditor without the intervention of the court or the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It overrides sections 69 and 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and empowers the secured creditor to enforce the security interest in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein." 14. Section 35 of the Securitisation Act upon which much stress has been placed by counsel for the bank provides that the provision of the Securitisation Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 15. Sections 13 and 35 of the Securitisation Act have non obstante clauses. By virtue of section 13(1), the provisions contained in sections 69 and 69A of the Transfer of Property Act are overridden and any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor is capable of being enforced without the intervention of the court or Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the Securitisation Act while section 35 overrides other laws or instruments in the case of inconsistency...." 18. The Bombay Sales Tax Act and the Securitisation Act have been enacted by competent Legislatures for different purposes and operate in different fields. The Bombay Sales Tax Act is enacted by the State Legislature under entry 45 of List II in the Seventh Schedule for levy of tax on the sale or purchase of certain goods in the State of Bombay (now the State of Maharashtra). The Bombay Sales Tax Act is enacted by the State Legislature under entry 45 of List II in the Seventh Schedule for levy of tax on the sale or purchase of certain goods in the State of Bombay (now the State of Maharashtra). On the other hand, the Securitisation Act has been enacted by Parliament under entry 45 of List I for regulating the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and for enforcement of security interest. There is neither any conflict in these two Acts nor section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act can be said to be inconsistent with section 35 of the Securitisation Act. The area of operation is entirely different and there is no overlapping anywhere." 19. Section 35 of the Securitisation Act may have had some bearing, if there was some provision in the Securitisation Act for a first charge in favour of the banks and financial institutions. But neither section 13 nor any other provision under the Securitisation Act makes a provision for first charge. There being no provision in the Securitisation Act providing for first charge in favour of the banks, section 35 of the Securitisation Act cannot be held to override section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, that specifically provides that the liability under the said Act shall be the first charge. The overriding provision contained in section 38C is only subject to the provision of the first charge in the Central Act holding the field. The case of the bank is not covered by the expression, "subject to any provision regarding first charge in any Central Act for the time being in force" and that being the position, section 38C is not overridden by section 35 of the Securitisation Act." 24. As per the provisions of Sec.24(1) of TNGST Act, in the event of default made by any dealer in respect of the tax assessed under the Act within the time specified in the notice of assessment, 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 dealer. Further, u/s.24(2) of TNGST Act any tax assessed and any amount due under the Act from a dealer shall have priority over all other claims against the property of the said dealer. 25. Further, u/s.24(2) of TNGST Act any tax assessed and any amount due under the Act from a dealer shall have priority over all other claims against the property of the said dealer. 25. Section 24 (1) and (2) of TNGST Act read as follows:- Sec.24(1):- Save as otherwise provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 13, the tax assessed or has become payable under this Act from a dealer or person and any other amount due from him under this Act shall be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time as may be specified in the notice of assessment, not being less than twenty-one days from the date of service of the notice. The tax under sub-section (2) of Section 13 shall be paid without any notice of demand. In default of such payments 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 interest under this Act. Sec.24 (2):- Any tax assessed on or has become payable by, or any other amount due under this Act from a dealer or person and any fee due from him under this Act, shall, subject to the claim of the Government in respect of land revenue and the claim of the Land Devleopment Bank in regard to the property mortgaged to it under Section 28 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Land Development Banks Act, 1934 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1934), have priority over all other claims against the property of the said dealer or person and the same may without prejudice to any other mode of collection be recovered. Reading of Secs.24 (1) and (2) of TNGST Act makes it clear that charge for liability under TNGST Act shall have priority. The statutory charge created u/s.24 of TNGST Act overrides anything contained in any contract which is contrary to Sec.24. While Sec.24 (1) gives the tax dues only the status of a simple mortgage over the properties of the defaulter, sub-section (2) gives these dues a priority over all other claims against that property except claims for land revenue and of Land Development Bank. 26. While Sec.24 (1) gives the tax dues only the status of a simple mortgage over the properties of the defaulter, sub-section (2) gives these dues a priority over all other claims against that property except claims for land revenue and of Land Development Bank. 26. In [1995] 96 STC 612 (SC)[ State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation and others], Supreme Court dealt with the question of first charge over the property of a dealer for payment of arrears of sales tax u/s.11-AAAA of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 vis-a-vis Sec.58 and Sec.100 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 11-AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act like section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act provides for the liability under the said Act to be first charge. Section 11AAAA reads, "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." The language of Section 11-AAAA is a bit different from section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. However, the creation of first charge in favour of the bank being not under any Central Act, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation [1995] 96 STC 612; [1995] 2 Comp Cas 551; [1995] 212 ITR 428; [1995] 2 SCC 19 becomes relevant. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report, the Supreme Court observed thus: "7.It is, therefore, necessary to consider the effect of section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, on an existing mortgage in respect of the property of the dealer or the person liable to pay sales tax or other sums under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with charges on an immovable property which can be created either by an act of parties or by operation of law. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with charges on an immovable property which can be created either by an act of parties or by operation of law. It provides that where immovable property of one person is made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, a charge is created on the property and all the provisions in the Transfer of Property Act which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. A mortgage on the other hand, is defined under section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act as a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced as set out therein. The distinction between a mortgage and a charge was considered by this court in the case of Dattatreya Shanker Mote v. Anand Chintaman Datar [1974] 2 SCC 799. The court has observed (at pages 806-807) that a charge is wider term as it includes also a mortgage, in that, every mortgage is a charge, but every charge is not a mortgage. The court has then considered the application of the second part of section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act which, inter alia, deals with a charge not being enforceable against a bona fide transferee of the property for value without notice of the charge. It has held that the phrase transferee of property refers to the transferee of entire interest in the property and it does not cover the transfer of only an interest in the property by way of a mortgage." 8. In the present case, we have to consider whether the statutory first charge which is created under section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act over the property of the dealer or a person liable to pay sales tax and/or other dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, is created in respect of the entire interest in the property or only the mortgagors interest in the property when the dealer has created a mortgage on the property. In other words, will the statutory first charge have priority over an earlier mortgage? It was urged by Mr. In other words, will the statutory first charge have priority over an earlier mortgage? It was urged by Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the appellant-bank, that at the time when the statutory first charge came into existence, there was already a mortgage in respect of the same property. Therefore, the only property which was possessed by the dealer and/or person liable to pay tax or other dues under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, was equity of redemption in respect of that property. The first charge would operate, therefore, only on the equity of redemption. The arguments though ingenious, will have to be rejected. Where a mortgage is created in respect of any property, undoubtedly, an interest in the property is carved out in favour of the mortgagee. The mortgagor is entitled to redeem his property on payment of the mortgage dues. This does not, however, mean that the property ceases to be the property of the mortgagor. The title to the property remains with the mortgagor. Therefore, when a statutory first charge is created on the property of the dealer, the property subjected to the first charge is the entire property of the dealer. The interest of the mortgagee is not excluded from the first charge. The first charge, therefore, which is created under section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act will operate on the property as a whole and not only on the equity of redemption as urged by Mr.Tarkunde." "The Supreme Court with reference to first charge over the property of the dealer under section 11AAAA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, vis-a-vis earlier mortgage of the same property held that the statutory first charge has precedence over an existing mortgage. The Bombay Sales Tax Act provides for first charge in respect of the sales tax liability over the property of the dealer or the concerned person and that statutory first charge ( in the absence of any other statutory first charge created in favour of the bank) has precedence over the banks charge based on contractual mortgage." 27. The Bombay Sales Tax Act provides for first charge in respect of the sales tax liability over the property of the dealer or the concerned person and that statutory first charge ( in the absence of any other statutory first charge created in favour of the bank) has precedence over the banks charge based on contractual mortgage." 27. Observing that Sec.24 (2) and 26(6) of TNGST Act sufficiently safeguard and also enable the State to enforce the recovery of taxes and other dues under the TNGST Act as the first statutory charge holder in supersession of even the claims of an existing mortgagee, in 1999 [113] STC 145 [Central Bank of India v. State of Tamil Nadu and another], Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "8. ..... Sections 24(2) and 26(6) as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 78 of 1986, sufficiently safeguard and also enable the State to enforce the recovery of the taxes and other dues under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as the first statutory charge holder in supersession of even the claims of an existing mortgagee, who claims to be a secured creditor too and the contentions to the contrary are devoid of merit and are hereby rejected. ...." 11. ..... The decision reported in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. National Iron & Steel Rolling Corporation [1995] 96 STC 612 (SC), as also earlier decision relied upon therein and reported in Dattatreya Shanker Mote v. Anand Chintaman Datar (1974) 2 SCC 799 in unmistakable terms declare also the position that there are vast differences between "charge" and "mortgage", and that when a first charge is created by operation of law over any property, that charge will have precedence over even an existing mortgage. As a matter of fact, section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, postulates and categorically envisages the creation of a charge by the "operation of law" and therefore, a law creating a charge by operation of such law cannot constitute any inconsistency of the said law creating the charge with the general law relating to transfer of property, necessitating the obtaining of any consent of the President under article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. ...." 28. ...." 28. In 2004 (134) STC 562 [State of Tamil Nadu and another v. M. Cauvery Ammal], it was held that although the term "first charge" is not mentioned under section 24 of TNGST Act, 1959, it was clear that a statutory charge had been created and even prior to sale, the final order of assessment had been made by the competent authority and under the circumstances, the respondent was not entitled to the relief. Eventhough, the word first charge is not found in Sec.24(2), language of Sec.24(2) that sales tax dues will have priority over all other claims against those properties assumes significance. 29. Contending that crown has preferential right only as against the unsecured debts on behalf of Petitioner Bank and 3rd Respondent – auction purchaser much emphasis was laid upon in Dena Bank case (2000) 5 SCC 694 . In Para-10 of Dena Bank case, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under:- "10. However, the Crowns preferential right to recovery of debts over other creditors is confined to ordinary or unsecured creditors. The common law of England or the principles of equity and good conscience (as applicable in India) do not accord the Crown a preferential right for recovery of its debts over a mortgagee or pledgee of goods or a secured creditor. It is only in cases where the Crowns right and that of the subject meet at one and the same time that the Crown is in general preferred. Where the right of the subject is complete and perfect before that of the King commences, the rule does not apply, for there is no point of time at which the two rights are at conflict, nor can there be a question which of the two ought to prevail in a case where one, that of the subject, has prevailed already. In Giles v. Grover (1832) 131 ER 563 : 9 Bing 128 it has been held that the Crown has no precedence over a pledgee of goods. In Giles v. Grover (1832) 131 ER 563 : 9 Bing 128 it has been held that the Crown has no precedence over a pledgee of goods. In Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar (1972) 3 SCC 196 : AIR 1971 SC 1210 the principle has been recognised by this Court holding that the rights of the pawnee who has parted with money in favour of the pawnor on the security of the goods cannot be extinguished even by lawful seizure of goods by making money available to other creditors of the pawnor without the claim of the pawnee being first fully satisfied. Rashbehary Ghose states in Law of Mortgage (TLL, 7th Edn., P.386) – "It seems a government debt in India is not entitled to precedence over a prior secured debt." Though in Para-10 of Dena Bank case, Supreme Court held as above, noticing that Karnataka Sales Tax will have precedence over any other debt, the demand or claim, Supreme Court ultimately held that "State shall have preferential right to recover over the right of the appellant-bank. 30. In Dena Bank case, Supreme Court referred to Sec.158 of Kartanaka Land Revenue Act which was extracted in Para-12 of the Judgment which reads as under:- "158. Claim of State Government to have precedence over all others – (1) 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." Noticing Sec.158 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Supreme Court has held that Sec.158 not only gives statutory recognition to the doctrine of the States priority for recovery of debts, but it also extends its applicability over private debts forming the subject matter of mortgage, judgment, decree, execution of attachment and the like. Supreme Court has further held that effect of Sec.158 is to accord a primacy to all the moneys recoverable under Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will include sales tax arrears. Supreme Court has further held that effect of Sec.158 is to accord a primacy to all the moneys recoverable under Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will include sales tax arrears. In Dena Bank case, Supreme Court has ultimately held that State shall have preferential right to recover its dues over the right of the appellant-bank. 31. Much emphasis was laid upon the observation of the Supreme Court in Dena Bank case in Para-10. A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicity decides and no more. In 2007 AIR SCW 6904 (U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey & others), the Supreme Court has held that decision is a precedent on its own facts. In Para-10, Supreme Court has only referred the text book (Law of Mortgage, (TLL, 7th Edn., P.386) ). Taking note of Sec.158(c) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Supreme Court has held that State shall have preferential right over the rights of appellant bank. In view of the conclusions of Supreme Court in Dena Bank case, the observations in Para-10 cannot be said to be a binding precedent. .32. Observing that the decision is a precedent on its own facts, in 2007 (1) LW 99 (Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation and others v. Mansaram Nainwal), Supreme Court has held as under:- ."The High Court unfortunately did not discuss the factual aspects and by merely placing reliance on earlier decision of the Court held that reinstatement was mandated. Reliance on the decisions without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a judges decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the judge draws from the direct or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided in along binding as a precedent. (See State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and others [ AIR 1968 SC 647 ] and Union of India and others v. Dhanwanti Devi and others [ 1996 (6) SCC 44 ]" .33. In support of his contention that secured credit will prevail over crown debts, learned counsel for the Petitioners Bank placed reliance upon 2005 (1) CTC 758 [ICICI Bank Ltd. Chennai v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, Liquidator of Vibrant Investments & Properties Ltd. (in liquidation), Chennai). In the said case, question involved was whether the claim of the Petitioner will prevail over the claim of Income Tax department and Karnataka Sales Tax department. Referring to Dena Bank case, First Bench of this Court held that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Dena Bank case where in Para-10, it was observed that the claim of a secured creditor will prevail over crown debts. Judgment in 2005 (1) CTC 758 is a very short judgment and facts of which are not known. Noticing Sec.158 (c) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in Dena Bank case the Supreme Court ultimately held that State shall have preferential right to recover its dues over the rights of appellant-bank. In such view of the matter, the decision in 2005 (1) CTC 758 [ICICI Bank Ltd. Chennai v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, Liquidator of Vibrant Investments & Properties Ltd. (in liquidation), Chennai) cannot be said to be binding precedent. 34. In such view of the matter, the decision in 2005 (1) CTC 758 [ICICI Bank Ltd. Chennai v. The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, Liquidator of Vibrant Investments & Properties Ltd. (in liquidation), Chennai) cannot be said to be binding precedent. 34. Though the provision in pari materia with Sec.158 (c) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act is not found in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the language in Sec.24(2) of TNGST Act that arrears of sales tax dues will have priority over all other claims would clearly assert priority of statutory charge over other claims including the secured creditor. To my mind the word "priority over all other claims against those property" has far reaching effect and the charge created for the sales tax dues will have priority over the debt payable to a bank. 35. In my considered view, there is no conflict between the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Securitisation Act. Both TNGST Act as well as Securitisation Act have been enacted by the competent Legislature for different purposes in different fields. 36. Apart from the statutory priority charge, in fact, 1st Respondent has actually attached the property before ever the bank could initiate action under Securitisation Act. As pointed out earlier, for the tax payable for the assessment year 1991-92 has become charge which has priority. As per Sec.24(2) of TNGST Act arrears could be recovered:- .(a) as land revenue; or .(b) on application to any Magistrate by such Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by him; After assessment order was passed on 312. 2001, Form-B3 and notice of final assessment and demand were issued to the 2nd Respondent on 312. 2001. Form-N3 Notice of Final Annual Assessment and Demand; Form-54 Notice of demand of penalty were also issued on 312. 2001. Form-I distraint order and Form-IV demand notice under Revenue Recovery Act were issued to all partners of 2nd Respondent firm on 15. 2005. 37. Sec. 27 of Revenue Recovery Act deals with mode of attachment of property to be sold under Revenue Recovery Act. Notice of attachment was also served on 17. 2005. Then Form-V – Notice of attachment dated 28. 2005 as contemplated u/s.27 of Revenue Recovery Act was also served on 8. 2006. Form-7 and Form-7A notice of sale of land i.e. No.97 SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet were also served on 8. 2006. Notice of attachment was also served on 17. 2005. Then Form-V – Notice of attachment dated 28. 2005 as contemplated u/s.27 of Revenue Recovery Act was also served on 8. 2006. Form-7 and Form-7A notice of sale of land i.e. No.97 SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet were also served on 8. 2006. Attachment and public auction were duly published in Vellore District Gazette on 01. 2007 which amounts constructive notice to all and the charge was created long ago in the manner as contemplated u/s.24(1) of TNGST Act. 38. As noted earlier, property was attached and notice of sale of the land dated 28. 2005 was served on 08. 2006. Only at that stage, Petitioner-bank had issued notice u/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 8. 2005. Notice u/s.13(2) is akin to show cause notice. Issuance of notice u/s.13(2) is based on the footing that the debtor is under liability and that crown in respect of such liability has become sub-standard doubtful or loss. On receipt of notice u/s13(2) the borrower may make payment or might sent his representation or objection and the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and the secured creditor shall communicate within one week on receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower. Issuance of notice u/s.13(2) is akin to show cause notice. 39. Issuance of notice u/s.13(2) is akin to show cause notice. In case borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified, u/s.13(4) the secured creditor may take recourse to any one of the measures indicated u/s.13(4) to recover his secured debt. In the present case Sec.13(4) possession notice was issued by the Bank on 112. 2006. By the time possession notice u/s.13(4) was issued. Property was already attached and the order of attachment and notice of sale was served on 08. 2006 itself. Despite attachment and notice of sale of land for the outstanding sales tax dues having been served upon, in an illegal manner, bank has proceeded u/s.13 of Securitisation Act and sold the property of 2nd Respondent firm for recovery of its outstanding dues. The subsequent sale proceedings of the bank is illegal and unauthorised. 40. 2006 itself. Despite attachment and notice of sale of land for the outstanding sales tax dues having been served upon, in an illegal manner, bank has proceeded u/s.13 of Securitisation Act and sold the property of 2nd Respondent firm for recovery of its outstanding dues. The subsequent sale proceedings of the bank is illegal and unauthorised. 40. In an identical case, observing that the action of the bank is wholly illegal and unauthorised, in [2006] 148 STC 32 (Bom) [Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others], Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held as under:- " We, accordingly hold that section 35 of Securitisation Act has no effect whatsoever in the operation of section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Section 35 of the Securitisation Act does not override section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and, therefore, based on section 35 of the Securitisation Act, the bank does not get precedence or for that matter priority over the statutory first charge under section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Rather the statutory first charge under section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act has precedence over the banks charge based on contract." "It is not in dispute that before the process was initiated by the bank under section 13 of the Act by issuance of notice dated December 20, 2004, the sales tax authorities had already attached the properties of the company for recovery of sales tax dues. Despite the recovery process for outstanding sales tax dues having been initiated by the sales tax authorities who had a first charge under section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, the bank in grossly illegal manner proceeded under section 13 of the Securitisation Act and sold the property of the company for recovery of its outstanding dues. The action of the bank is wholly illegal and unauthorised." 41. In 2005 [142] STC 283 [State of Kerala and another v. Rajmohan Cashew Pvt. Ltd. and others], it was held that State has priority over banks holding a charge over properties of dealers, in the manner of recovery of debts due and the specific statutory charge created under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, notwithstanding the equitable mortgages created by the defaulters in favour of banks prior to the liability in favour of the State. .42. .42. In (2007) 7 VST 469 (Ker) [ State Bank of Travancore v. Recovery Officer, Employees State Insurance Corporation and others), question arose whether recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions would have precedence over the statutory charge for recovery of sales tax. Observing that there is no conflict between the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Kerala High Court has held that the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been enacted for speedy recovery of amounts due to banks and financial institutions. The intention of enacting the Act was not to give any precedence to dues of banks and financial institutions, but to provide for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions without following the cumbersome procedure of the civil courts. The purpose of the Act is not to create a statutory charge for banks or financial institutions. 43. First Respondent had sent communication to the Sub Registrar on 03. 2007 to create encumbrance. Unmindful of encumbrance created and the publication of auction sale in the Gazette even as early as on 01. 2007, bank has proceeded u/s.13 of SARFAESI Act and the action of the bank is clearly unauthorised. 44. Section 26(1) of TNGST Act provides for an additional mode of recovery apart from the other modes of collection of statutory arrears by calling upon a person from whom money is due and may become due to the dealer who is liable to pay any amount due under the Act or to call upon any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for, or on account of the dealer, which was become liable to pay any amount, pay to the assessing authority so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due by the dealer. Accordingly, 1st Respondent had sent impugned letter to the bank informing the bank about the attachment of property and publication in the Gazette for recovery of sales tax arrears of Rs.37,09,966/-. Since Government charge has priority over all other claims against the property, bank is burdened with the obligation of making payment to the Government and the bank cannot challenge the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent. .45. Since Government charge has priority over all other claims against the property, bank is burdened with the obligation of making payment to the Government and the bank cannot challenge the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent. .45. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent-auction purchaser contended that encumbrance certificate was obtained on 02. 2007 and 13. 2007 and there was no encumbrance to show the attachment of the property by sales tax department and the bank as secured creditor has sold the property to the 3rd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent being bonafide purchaser, not being aware of the attachment of the property cannot be penalised. 3rd Respondent also seeks for appropriate direction to register the document executed in its favour by the bank. 1st Respondent has communicated with Sub Regitrar, Walaja by letter dated 03. 2007 that Government has first charge and to create a charge. Third Respondent is not right in contending that 3rd Respondent had no knowledge of attachment. When the attachment and the proposed auction was published in Vellore District Gazette on 01. 2007, it amounts to constructive notice and the 3rd Respondent is not right in contending that he had no knowledge of attachment and the proposed auction sale. 46. Since, first Respondent has statutory charge which is having priority over all other claims against the property, Petitioner-bank cannot successfully challenge the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent. Despite, recovery process for the outstanding sales tax dues, the action of the bank in proceeding under SARFAESI Act is unauthorised and the Petitioner Bank is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. 47. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed.