JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. The applicants have taken out this Judge's Summons in which following relief/s are prayed for: "(a) That it be declared that the 2nd Respondent and the Sales Tax authorities have no charge on properties bearing Survey No.422/p, 423/1 p, 423/2 p and 524 situated at Village Karamsad, Taluka Anand in Registration District and Sub District Anand in respect of their claim fro sales tax dues against Beclawat of India Ltd. (in liquidation) (b) That the 2nd Respondent be directed to withdraw and remove the charge of sales tax authorities noted in the land revenue records in respect of lands bearing Survey No.422/p, 423/1p, 423/2p and 524 situated at Village Karamsad, Taluka Anand in Registration District and Sub District Anand. (c) That such other and further directions may be given as the Hon'ble Court may deem necessary and expedient. (d) Costs of this Application be provided for." 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashok L. Shah for the applicants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. V.S.Pathak for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar for respondent No.1 - Official Liquidator. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the applicants submitted that M/s. Beclawat of India Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court passed on 22nd December 1992 in Company Petition Nos.62 of 1991 to 64 of 1991. The Official Liquidator thereafter had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 21.03.2003 in O.L.R. No. 41 of 2003, whereby a sale committee was appointed for the sale of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. Different parcels of freehold land of the company in liquidation were put to sale, the details of which are given in para 2 of the affidavit in support of the Judge's Summons. The sale committee invited offers for the purchase of land, building and other structures, plant and machineries and other movable properties of the company in liquidation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah thereafter submitted that applicant No.2 gave his offer for the purchase of assets and properties of the company in liquidation for a total price of Rs. 1,35,000,00/-. The sale committee invited offers for the purchase of land, building and other structures, plant and machineries and other movable properties of the company in liquidation. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah thereafter submitted that applicant No.2 gave his offer for the purchase of assets and properties of the company in liquidation for a total price of Rs. 1,35,000,00/-. This Court passed an order on 06.05.2004 in O.L.R. No.21 of 2004 in Company Petition No.62 of 1991, whereby this Court confirmed the sale of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation in favour of the applicant No.2. Learned advocate referred to the said order produced at page 19 of the compilation. After referring to the said order, learned advocate submitted that the sale of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation was "as is where is and whatever there is" basis. He submitted that condition No.7 of the said order provides that the purchaser shall pay all the taxes in relation to property levied/leviable by the State Government or any local authority in relation to the company in liquidation. It is hereby abundantly clear that such dues shall include all the outstanding dues. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah thereafter submitted that the applicant No.2 made payment of full consideration to the Official Liquidator. As per the permission granted by this Court in the aforesaid order, the applicant No.2 i.e. the successful bidder nominated applicant No.1 company and requested the Official Liquidator to execute a conveyance deed in favour of applicant No.1 company. Hence, the Official Liquidator executed a deed of conveyance on 29.10.2004. 6. At this stage, learned advocate submitted that after the execution of the deed of conveyance, the applicant No.1 applied to the Mamlatdar, Anand in the year 2008 to enter the name of applicant No.1 as the owner of the said lands pursuant to the deed of conveyance. The concerned officer of the office of Mamlatdar, Anand, by his note dated 05.11.2008, rejected the application of applicant No.1 observing that the application of the applicant is rejected because there is a charge noted in favour of sales tax. Learned advocate referred to the documents produced at Annexures D, E and F with the compilation and submitted that in the record of rights, claim of the sales tax authorities is recorded against the company in liquidation. Learned advocate referred to the documents produced at Annexures D, E and F with the compilation and submitted that in the record of rights, claim of the sales tax authorities is recorded against the company in liquidation. When the applicants came to know about the said aspect, applicant No.1 wrote a letter dated 12.1.2011 to Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Anand to issue no objection letter for transferring the lands in the name of applicant No.1. However, he did not respond to the said letter. Therefore, application was given to the office of Mamlatdar for getting the said lands transferred in the name of applicant No.1 pursuant to the deed of conveyance dated 29.10.2004. However, the said application was rejected on 06.08.2011. 7. Learned advocate Mr. A.L.Shah for the applicants contended that the applicants are not liable to pay the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation in respect of the period prior to the date of liquidation. He contended that the lands were sold and conveyed to the applicant No.1 company as per the terms and conditions stated in the order confirming the sale as well as deed of conveyance dated 29.10.2004. As per condition No.7 of order dated 06.05.2004 passed in O.L.R. No. 22 of 2004, the applicants are liable to pay and bear only the taxes in respect of the lands. The past sales tax dues of the company in liquidation are not taxes in respect of the land of the company in liquidation and therefore the applicants are not liable to bear and pay the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation. He further contended that there are several judgments and orders of this Court wherein it has been held that the purchaser of property of a company in liquidation in court auction is not liable to pay the past sales tax dues of the company in liquidation. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah thereafter contended that if the sales tax authorities have any claim against the company in liquidation in respect of sales tax dues, they have to prefer their claim before the respondent No.1 i.e. the Official Liquidator of the company in liquidation under the provisions of the Companies Act of 1956. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah thereafter contended that if the sales tax authorities have any claim against the company in liquidation in respect of sales tax dues, they have to prefer their claim before the respondent No.1 i.e. the Official Liquidator of the company in liquidation under the provisions of the Companies Act of 1956. As and when such claims are received by the Official Liquidator of the company in liquidation, the Official Liquidator would consider the same in accordance with the provision of the Companies Act, more particularly, under Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, it is the duty of the Official Liquidator to see that the sales tax authorities withdraw their noting in the 7/12 extract in respect of their claim against the company in liquidation and issue no due certificate to the applicants. Learned advocate vehemently contended that the sales tax is not a charge and does not create a charge on the lands of the person who is liable to pay the sales tax. Such dues does not create any charge on the land of the company in liquidation. The same is to be dealt with as per the provisions of Section 530 and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, the applicants are not liable to pay the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation. He, therefore, argued that the sales tax dues are not secured debts of the company in liquidation and have to be paid by the Official Liquidator in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. He, therefore, requested that the respondent No.2 i.e. the Sales Tax Authority be directed to get removed their claim and attachment from Village Form No.7/12 and other revenue records in respect of the lands of the company in liquidation for which the applicants are purchasers. Hence, the respondent No.2 be directed to issue no objection certificate in favour of the applicants with further direction to respondent No.2 to remove or withdraw their noting made in the revenue record. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Petlad [ 1991 (3) SCC 283 ] and order dated 28.01.2010 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 464 of 2009. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Petlad [ 1991 (3) SCC 283 ] and order dated 28.01.2010 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 464 of 2009. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that applicant No.2 was a successful bidder and therefore sale was confirmed in his favour by this Court. He paid the entire amount of the sale consideration and therefore the possession of the land of the company in liquidation was handed over to him by the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has issued letter to the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Anand on 22nd September 2014 requesting them to file their claim in the office of the Official Liquidator but the reply from the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner was not received till the filing of the report. He further contended that the claim of sales tax would be considered by the Official Liquidator under Section 530 of the Companies Act after making the payment to the workers and secured creditors in full. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. V.S. Pathak appearing for the respondent No.2 mainly submitted that the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation were Rs. 1,10,01,921/- plus interest which was pending from the year 1995 against the company in liquidation. The respondent No.2 therefore lodged the claim before the Official Liquidator on 22.12.1992. She has mainly relied upon condition Nos. 7 and 8 of the order dated 06.05.2004 passed by this Court in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004 and submitted that as per the said conditions, purchaser shall have to pay all the taxes in relation to the property. She, therefore, submitted that levy of tax/Government taxes and local authorities' taxes are required to be paid by the purchaser including the outstanding dues. She, further submitted that as per the said conditions, the applicants have not paid the sales tax dues and therefore charge on the aforesaid lands was not removed. She, therefore, requested that the present application be dismissed. 12. She, further submitted that as per the said conditions, the applicants have not paid the sales tax dues and therefore charge on the aforesaid lands was not removed. She, therefore, requested that the present application be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties and I have also gone through the documents produced on record and the decisions referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicants. 13. From the record, it emerges that this Court has passed an order on 22.12.1992 in Company Petition Nos. 62 of 1991 to 64 of 1991 by which M/s. Beclawat of India Ltd. was ordered to be wound up. The company in liquidation owned and possessed certain parcels of freehold land at village Karamsad, Taluka Anand. This Court constituted a sale committee for the sale of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. Said committee invited offers for the purchase of the land, building and other structure, plant, machineries and other movable properties of the company in liquidation. Applicant No.2 gave his offer for the purchase of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. The said offer was accepted and the sale was confirmed in favour of applicant No.2 by order dated 06.05.2004 passed by this Court in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004. As per the terms and conditions of the said order, the applicant No.2 paid full amount of consideration to the Official Liquidator and therefore the possession of the land is also given to applicant No.2 by the Official Liquidator. Thereafter, applicant No.2 nominated applicant No.1 company and therefore the deed of conveyance was executed in favour of application No.1 by the Official Liquidator on 29.10.2004. When the applicants have requested the revenue authorities for mutation of their names in the revenue record, it was refused on the ground that charge of the Sales Tax Department (respondent No.2) has been recorded in the revenue record and there is a claim of the sales tax authorities against the company in liquidation. 14. In view of the aforesaid broad facts of the present case, the only contention which is taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.2 is that as per condition Nos. 14. In view of the aforesaid broad facts of the present case, the only contention which is taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.2 is that as per condition Nos. 7 and 8 of the terms and conditions of order dated 06.05.2004 passed by this Court in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004, the purchaser is required to pay all the taxes in relation to the property including all outstanding dues. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant condition Nos. 7 and 8 of the order dated 06.05.2004 passed in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004, which read as under" "[7] The purchaser shall pay all the taxes in relation to property: levied/leviable by the State Government or any local authority in relation to the company in liquidation. It is hereby made abundantly clear that such dues shall include all outstanding dues. [8] The purchaser shall bear the cost of shifting of the records of the company as Official Liquidator directs." 15. Thus, the only question which is required to be considered by this Court is with regard to interpretation of the words used in condition No.7 i.e. "the taxes in relation to property" and whether the said words include the sales tax liability of the company in liquidation or not. Now, it is true that this Court in condition No.7 used the words, "The purchaser shall pay all the taxes in relation to property", which as rightly contended by learned advocate Mr. Shah do not include the sales tax liability of the company in liquidation and it only relates to the taxes with regard to the properties of the company in liquidation i.e. the properties which the applicants have purchased in court auction. In other words, the applicants are liable to pay all the taxes relating to the property of the company in liquidation and sales tax cannot be said to be the taxes in relation to property. Moreover, as observed earlier, the applicants have paid full consideration of the property. 16. Now, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 530 of the Companies Act provides that: "530. Moreover, as observed earlier, the applicants have paid full consideration of the property. 16. Now, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 530 of the Companies Act provides that: "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 revenues taxes, cesees 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;" 17. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that all revenues taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local authority at the relevant date and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date shall be paid in priority to all other dues in a winding up proceedings subject to provisions of Section 529A of the Act and the same shall be paid in priority to all other dues. Clause (c) of sub-section (8) of Section 530 provides that: (c) the expression "the relevant date" means- (i) in the case of a company ordered to be wound up compulsorily, the date of the appointment (or first appointment) of a provisional liquidator, or if no such appointment was made, the date of the winding up order, unless in either case the company had commenced to be wound up voluntarily before that date; and (ii) xxxxx " 18. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions of law it is clear that the debts due and payable so as to claim priority must be appropriated to the period within 12 months next before the relevant date and their liability for payment must be founded during that period and no other. In other words, it can be said that the State has priority over debts, liability and obligation of which was borne within the time frame of those 12 months and as such due and becoming due and payable within those 12 months next before the relevant date, ascertainable it necessary later, if not already ascertained. In other words, it can be said that the State has priority over debts, liability and obligation of which was borne within the time frame of those 12 months and as such due and becoming due and payable within those 12 months next before the relevant date, ascertainable it necessary later, if not already ascertained. The words "having become due and payable within 12 months next before the relevant date" need to be understood to mean putting a restriction or cordoning of the amount for which priority is claimable and not in respect of each and every debt on account of taxes, rates and cesses etc. which may be outstanding at that time and payable. Thus, as and when the claim is lodged by the Sales Tax Department before the Official Liquidator, he has to first ascertain as to whether the liability of sales tax belongs to and is founded within the period of 12 months next before the date of order of winding up i.e. in the present case 22.12.1992. At this stage, it is relevant to note that the Sales Tax Department has already lodged the claim before the Official Liquidator in the year 1995. The Official Liquidator would consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 530 of the Companies Act. 19. Thus, merely because this Court has observed in condition No.7 of the terms and conditions that the purchaser is required to pay all the taxes in relation to the property levied/leviable by the State Government or any local authority in relation to the company in liquidation, it does not mean that preferential payment from the sale proceeds be made to any Government Authority or any local authority over the other secured creditors, workers, etc. of the company in liquidation in contravention to the provisions of Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. Moreover, as observed above, as per the condition No.7 of the aforesaid order, the purchaser is required to pay all the taxes in relation to property and sales-tax is not the taxes in relation to the property. 20. This Court, vide order dated 28.01.2010 in Company Application No.464 of 2009, observed and held in para 4, 5 and 6 as under: "4. 20. This Court, vide order dated 28.01.2010 in Company Application No.464 of 2009, observed and held in para 4, 5 and 6 as under: "4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently contested the application to submit that the dues of the State Government are crown debts and are required to be discharged prior in point of time before any Secured Creditor is paid off. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the dues in the present question relate to 1998-99 and various recovery notices have been issued pursuant to assessment framed on 30.6.2003 under section 41(4) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 entitling the State Government to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader entries recording said charge in revenue record have rightly been made and the Applicant cannot be permitted to seek deletion of such entries. That the judgment and order on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the Applicant were rendered in different context and should not be applied to the present case. 5. It is an accepted position that the Company was ordered to be wound up by the High Court on 22.2.2002 made in Company Petition No. 354 of 1999 whereas, as already recorded, the assessment was framed on 30.6.2003. In the circumstances, any demand raised pursuant to such assessment after the order of winding up cannot claim priority in light of provisions of sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 read together. As already laid down by the High Court, the State Government has to lodge its claim with the Official Liquidator in accordance with law along with all other Unsecured Creditors. 6. As a consequence any entry made pursuant to such assessment framed after order of winding up cannot be sustained. Revenue Authorities were therefore, not justified in making the aforesaid entries as appearing in the revenue record as reflected by 7/12 extract placed on record. Accordingly, respondent authorities, more particularly respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby directed to cancel the aforesaid entries registering the so called charge of Sales Tax Department and the Gram Panchayat tax as arrears of land revenue to ensure that the applicant gets free and clear marketable title qua the property of the Company in liquidation purchased vide order dated 9.1.2008 made in OLR No. 259 of 2007." 21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation for the year 1988 cannot be termed as the taxes in relation to the property. Further, when the respondent No.2 has already lodged its claim before the respondent No.1 - Official Liquidator in the year 1995, the same would be considered by the Official Liquidator as per the provision of Section 530 of the Companies Act and therefore the charge created by the respondent No.2 in respect of the land of the company in liquidation is required to be removed and the concerned revenue authority is required to make necessary entries in the revenue record entering the name of the applicant No.1 as purchaser of the land of the company in liquidation. Hence, the Mamlatdar, Anand is hereby directed to cancel the entry registering the so-called charge of Sales Tax Department as arrears of land revenue to ensure that the applicant No.1 gets free and clear marketable title qua the property of the company in liquidation purchased vide order dated 06.05.2004 passed in O.L.R. No. 22 of 2004. 22. Accordingly, the application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and stands disposed of with no order as to costs.