JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against judgment dated 11.05.2023 passed in CWP No.2719 of 2022, titled as Himanshu Prashar vs. Punjab National Bank & others, and other connected matters, whereby writ petition preferred by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar, praying for quashing the entries in revenue record as depicted in Nakal Jamabandi for the year 2016-2017 (Annexure P-5 of CWP No.2719 of 2022) has been allowed by referring judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 2169 of 2012, titled as Punjab National Bank vs. Union Bank of India & others, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 260 : AIR 2022 SC 1475 . 2. Respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar participated in e-Auction conducted by and on behalf of Punjab National Bank, for selling of assets of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law and provisions of SARFAESI Act read with Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. By offering highest price bid of an amount of Rs.6,38,00,000/-, he deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) on 21.09.2021. Vide communication dated 23.09.2021 Punjab National Bank accepted and confirmed the bid offered by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar for the purchase of assets of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. and Sale Certificate dated 30.09.2021 was issued in his favour by mentioning description of property purchased by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar and list of encumbrances freed from. On depositing the sale price physical possession was handed over to respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar alongwith superstructure constructed thereon. On finding record of report No.231 dated 18.03.2015 creating charge in favour of the State for liability of Tax to be paid by M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar preferred CWP No.2719 of 2022 for removal thereof. 3. Appellant-State mainly relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 4 SCC 94 , is pressing for allowing appeal on the ground that keeping in view provisions of Section 26 of Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘H.P. VAT Act, 2005’) first charge was created in favour of State on the property of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd. purchased by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar, and thus, priority has to be given to the statutory charge over all other charges on the property including mortgage. 4. 4. Perusal of Jamabandi (Annexure P-5) depicts that vide Rapat No.231, dated 18.03.2015 charge was created in favour of Excise and Taxation Department on the property owned by M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., for outstanding arrears of Rs.50,35,56,792/-. It is also noticeable that prior to that vide Rapat No.171, dated 29.01.2015 entire property was attached in favour of respondent No.2-Punjab National Bank. 5. As recorded by learned Single Judge issue involved in the matter is as to whether appellant State/Excise Department will be having first charge upon the property of M/s Gilvert ISPAT Pvt. Ltd., in terms of provisions of Section 26 of the H.P. VAT Act, 2005 or secured creditor Punjab National Bank shall have priority to recover over any other charge, including charge in favour of State, in terms of provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDB Act’) and Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SARFAESI Act’) as amended from time to time. 6. In Central Bank of India’s case, it was held by the Supreme Court that charge created in favour of State under the provisions of General Sales Tax Act in respect of sales tax dues prevailed over the charge created in favour of the Bank in respect of loan taken by a person/Firm/Company and the amendment made in the State operated in respect of charge that were in force on the date of introduction of Section 33-C of Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, creating first charge in favour of the State. 7. Undisputedly judgment in Central Bank of India’s case, passed before amendment in RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, whereby Section 31-B was inserted in RDB Act w.e.f. 01.09.2016 and Section 26-E was edited in SARFAESI Act w.e.f. 24.01.2020. 8. Sections 31-B and 34 of the RDB Act read as under:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the rights of secured creditors to realise secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority. 34. 34. Act to have overriding effect.—(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit [Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963)] [Now see the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 (58 of 2002).], the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984),[the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) Ins. By Act 1 of 2000, S. 16 (w.e.f. 17-1-2000) and the Small Industries Development Bank of India Act, 1989 (39 of 1989).]” 9. Sections 26E and 35 of SARFAESI Act read as under:- “26E. Priority to secured creditors.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.” 35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.- The provisions of this 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.” 10. After incorporation of Section 31 -B in RDB Act, High Court of Kerala has decided similar issue in a petition State Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, WP (C) No.28316 of 2016 and other connected matters, vide judgment dated 30.07.2019 holding that secured creditor under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act, obtains priority over the right claimed by the Revenue both in proceeding against the properties in question or in recovering the secured debt. 11. 11. In Central Bank of India’s case, matter was decided by noticing absence of any specific provision in either of the Central enactments containing a similar/parallel provision of a first charge in favour of the bank as was there in State enactments creating first charge in favour of the State. This judgment was passed on the basis of provisions prevailing at that point of time. Now by insertion of Section 31-B in RDB Act and Section 26E in SARFAESI Act, facts and circumstances have changed. Noticing the aforesaid changed circumstances, Kerala High Court in State of Bank of India’s case referred supra, has decided that secured creditor/bank shall have priority for recovery than to the recovery of tax notwithstanding any statutory first charge created in favour of Revenue by enacting the State Act. 12. It is apt to record that in Section 38 of Kerala Value Added Tax, 2003, there was provision that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force for recovery of any amount of tax, penalty, interest and any other amount, if any, payable by a dealer or any other person under this Act, there shall be the first charge in favour of State on the property of the dealer, or such person. 13. It is apt to record that SARFAESI Act and RDB Act are Special Central Acts, whereras H.P. VAT Act is a State Act. 14. In view of provisions of Articles 246, 251 and 254 of Constitution of India, law made by the Parliament i.e. Central Act, RDB Act and SARFAESI Act, shall prevail upon law made by the legislature of the State, i.e. H.P. VAT Act and being special enactment shall also have precedence over any general Central Act. 15. In UCO Bank and another vs. Dipak Debbarma and others, (2017) 2 SCC 585 , it has been held that in irreconcilable inconsistency between the State Act and the Central Act, provisions of Central Act will prevail over the State Act. 16. No doubt, in Punjab National Bank’s case, issue was decided by holding that in absence of any provision creating any first charge over the property the State debt was not to have priority over the claims of the secured creditors. 16. No doubt, in Punjab National Bank’s case, issue was decided by holding that in absence of any provision creating any first charge over the property the State debt was not to have priority over the claims of the secured creditors. However, in present case, though there is provision under VAT Act, creating first charge in favour of the State debt, but at the same time there are provisions of Section 26E in SARFAESI Act and Section 31-B in RDB Act and in such a situation provisions of Central Act will prevail entitling the bank to have priority to recover. 17. In similar matters a Coordinate Division Bench of this High Court dismissed the appeals of the State of Himachal Pradesh in LPA No 156 of 2021 alongwith LPAs No.158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 170, 171, 176, 177, 182, 201 of 2021, 25 of 2022, 23 and 65 of 2023, vide judgment dated 12.04.2023. 18. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case and also statutory provisions discussed supra, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any mistake, irregularity, illegality or perversity in allowing CWP No.2719 of 2022 preferred by respondent No.1-petitioner Himanshu Prashar. 19. Appeal is dismissed in aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.