EMCO Limited and Sherisha Powertech Private Limited V. Assistant Commissioner, (S-T). Warangal Urban-III Circle, Warangal, Telangana and Commissioner of State Tax, C-T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad and State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (State Tax) Secretariat, Hyderabad and Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi

WP/3962/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three writ petitions filed by M/s. EMCO Limited and M/s. Sherisha Powertech Private Limited against the tax authorities of Telangana and the Union of India. The petitions challenged the orders issued under Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act 2017, which sought to impose tax liabilities on M/s. EMCO Limited, a company that had gone into liquidation and was subsequently acquired by M/s. Sherisha Powertech. The main legal contention was that the liabilities of M/s. EMCO Limited were extinguished as per the NCLT order during the liquidation process, and thus, the tax claims were illegal and without jurisdiction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805972 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: KRBL Limited v. State of Gujarat, Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 73 of the SGST/CGST Act 2017
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K RAJI REDDY; K ARVIND KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KARAN TALWAR
• Keywords: Central Tax; Impugned order; Liquidation; NCLT order; State tax; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 73; 226

Judgement Text

"[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NOs: 3962 3963 and 3964 of 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 3962OF 2024 Assistant Commissioner, (S-T). Warangal Urban-lll Circle' Warangal, Telangana. The Commissioner of State Tax, C-T Complex' Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001. State of Telangana, Represented by the PrincP^al Secretary, Revenue Department (Sta'[e Tax) Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500OO4' Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance' Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ...RESPONDENTS Between: '1. M/s. EMCO Limited, 2nd floor, H-N-2-B-2/29-8, Anantha Laxmi Nilayam, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad Road, Jangoan, Telangana - 506167' 2. Mts. Sherisha Power tech Private Limited, New No- 11171, Old No 1/122 Old - Mrf,aOrfiprirm RoaO, Thandalam Village, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu - 6031 10. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a wRlT oF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ declaring as illegal the lmpugnedorder(RefNo.ZD361223o63476D)daled29.12.2023'andquashthe same as it is passed without authority of law. without jurisdiction and illegal being contrarytoHon'bleNCLT'MumbaiOrderdated0g.o8.2o2lpassedinlA No 203/MB/202i in c-p. (B) No.2849/t I Br2o1B or to issue any other appropriate writ or order as this Hon'bre High court may deem fit and proper to the facts and in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2O24 Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of ttre petition, the High court may be preased to grant an lnterim stay of the rnrpugned order dared 29.12.2023, issued by the first Respondent till the dispcsa I of this U./rit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI K.RAJI REDDY, Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. WRIT PETTTION NO: 3963 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/s, Srina EMCO Limited, 2nd floor, .H.N-2-8-2t29-8, Anantha Laxmi Nilayam, gar Colony, Hyderabad Road, Jangoan, fetangan; _ SbOt OZ lr4/s sherisha Powertech private Limited, New No. 1t171, ord No. 1/122 ord fVlahabalip^uram Road, Thandalam Village, fniruporui, frnif.,6\"prrr,.n,-ia-,nii Nadu - 603110. ..PETITIONERS AND 1. The Joint Telangana Commissioner (State Tax), Warangal DC Office, Warangal, The Commissioner of State Tax C.T Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad 50000 Stale,of Tgli.ng\"l_r, Represented..by th.e principat Secretary, uepartment (State Tax) Secretariat, Hyierabad 5OOd04. Revenue Union of lndia. Ministrv of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 11OO01 ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ. order or direction particurarry one in the nature of a 2 3 4 WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ declaring as illegal the lmpugned Order (Ref.No.2D361223O660920) dated 30,12.2023, and quash the same as it is passed without authority of law, without jurisdiction and illegal being contrary to Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai Order dated 09.09.2022 passed in lA No.B70/MB/C-1112022 in C.P. (lB) No.28aglMBIC-lll2O18 or to issue any other appropriate Writ or order as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an lnterim stay of the Impugned Order daled 30.12.2023, issued by the first Respondent till the disposal of this Writ Petitaon- Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.'l to 3: SRI K.RAJI REDDY, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. WRIT PETITION NO: 3964 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/s. EMCO Limited, 2nd floor, H.N-2-8-2129-8, Anantha Laxmi Nilayam, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad Road, Jangoan, Telangana - 506167. 2. Mls. Sherisha Powertech Private Limited, New No. 11171, OId No. 11122 Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thandalam Village, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu - 6O31 10. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Commissioner Telangana. (State Tax), Warangal DC Office, Warangal, 2. The Commissioner of State Tax C-T Conrplex, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500001. 3. State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (State Tax) Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500004. 4. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Represented by its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ...RESPONDENTS . Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directiorr particurarly one in the nature of a wRlr oF TMANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ declaring as ilegal the lmpugned order (DrN GSr/36AAACE27}4e1z7/18)dated 07.11.2023, and quash the same as it is passed without authority of raw, without jurisdiction and illegal being contrary to Hon'ble NCLT, Ivlumbai order dated 09_09.2022 passed in lA No.870/trrlB!c-ttt2o22inc.p.(lB) No.28a wM}lc-lltzo1l or to issue any othei. appropriate writ or order as this Hon'bre High court may deem fit and proper to the facts and in the circumstances of the casc. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to grant an Interim stay of the Impugned order dated 07.1 1.2023. issued by the Respondent till the disposal of this Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KARAN TALWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI K.RAJI REDDY, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPT Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.ARVIND KUMAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUI(ARAMJI UIRIT PETITION Nos.3962 3963 and 3964 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Since all three writ Petitions are assessees / petitioners, the issue involved in respect of the same also being identical in nature and the grounds of challengc also being identical, we proceed to decide the three writ pctitions by this common order' 2. Ileard Mr. karan Talwar, lcarned counsel for the petitioners' Mr. I(. Raji Rcddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing for rcspondent Nos. I to 3 and Mr' K' Arvind Kumar, Central Governrnent Counsel appcaring lor respcndent No'4' 3. The challenge in all the threc rvrit petitions is to the ordcr issued by respondent No. I under Scction 73 of the SGST/CGST Act 2017. The challenge is primarity on the ground that the notices have now becn issued, petitioner No. I Company which has gone into liquidation and petitioner No.2 is the Company which has acquired the liquidated Company, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that petiLioner No. I was the corporate debtor in the liquidation proceedings and as such was a going concern and petitioner No.2 was the auction purchaser and acqu-ired bhe said petitioner No.1 Company on a clean slate basis rvith all its liabilities 2 PSX,J&NTR,J iV.P.No.3952 ol 2O24&B^t.' - that was of pe titioner No. I Company prior to the transfer date, have now been fully exting,ished as per the order o[ the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court II (for short 'the NCLTJ 4. As per the NCLT,s order dated Og.Og.2O21, the eflective date of transfer u.as 20.OG.2C22. Subsequent to the petitioner No.2 having acquired the assets of the petitioner No.l Company by wa5, of liquidation proceedings and the order of thc NCLT, the rcspondent authorities issued a show cause notice dated 29.09 .2O23 and proposed the proceedings under Section 73. .lhc petitioncr No.1 immediately gave a reply to the shorv cause notice spccifically mcntioning that petitioner No. I was the corporatc debtor which rvas a going concern and petitioner No.2 was the firm which has acquircd pctitioner No.1 by way of al auction on a clean slate basis. With all liabilities whatsoever having been extinguished, proceedings under Section 73 proposed to be initiated was not sustainablc and was liable to be closed. The respondent authorities in spite of taking notc of the contentions that the petitioners had raised in rcply to the show cause notice, proceeded and passed three impugned orders which are trnder challenge in these writ petitions. 5. l.earned counsel for the petitioners took the Court to thc claim put forth by all the financial creditors and opcrational creditors and other stakeholders who were other than financial creditors and the PSK, .' & I'ITR. J W.P.No.3962 of 2024 &Batcb operational creditors and where the various departments of the Government who were the operational creditors as of February,2023, showed that the respondents in the instant cases i.e. the tax departments under the State Government had raised a total claim of Rs. l,O 1 ,070/ - and the said claim was put forth before the NCLT which was ordered to be paid by the liquidator. Apart from the aforesaid Rs. 1,01,070/ - raised from the departmenr, there was no other claim raised by any of the departments which are pending before any of the authorities concerned and as such all other claims if at all those which are now been raised by the departments which are under challenge in these writ petitions all would stand automatically extinguished in terms of the order of the NCLT and it is for this reason that the instant writ petitions have been firled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.23436 of 2O06 decided on 23.Ot.2O24 wir:ch arose from an approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT and prayed for applying the same principle in the instant cases also. Apart frorn the said judgment, he also relied upon a recent decision of the Gujarat High Court on the said subject in the case of KRBL Limited v. State of Gujaratr wherein the Gujarat High Court while allowing 3 I R/Special Civil Application No.198O4 of 2022 decided on 22.Og.2O23 PSK,J&NTR,.I g.P.ltlo.3962 of 2O24&B^t the petition, set aside the order passed by the department in the said CASC. 4 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand fairly conceded to the fact that petitioner No.1 is a liquidaced Company that is a going concern and the petitioner No.2 was the acquired Company acquiring all the assets of the liquidated company by way o[ e-auction that was conducted and where the petitioner No.2 was the highest bidder. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the entire liabilities which stood on the corporate debtor prior to thc ordcr of thc NCLT including those which were claimcd and thosc which u'ere not claimed all stood extinguished so far the Company rvhich had acquired the assets of the corporate debtor. 8. Having heard thc contentions put forth on either side and on perusal or records, at this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the relevant portion of the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by thc NCLT which reads as under: Remark H) Granted. Since the applicant should not bc saddted with the liability prior to the issuancc of sale .ccr&ficate. Prayer CIause No. Prayer irect that on and from the Transfer Date, a.ll claims by any Government authority or department against the Corporate Debtor or any liabilities or obligations owed or payablc by the Corporate Debtor to any Government authority or department (including but not limited to Taxes, liabilities, interest and penalties, duties, etc. on account of income- ta-x, tax deduction at source, tax collection at D o S r u ceS d S SC and ce rv1 S tzlx s cu o t d goo m uty u al e a d d tax ed s rv tax ce th weal t€lx SS CE ues, property tax etc.), whether direct or indirect, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or un-asserted, crystallized or un-crystallized, known or unknown, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, in reladon to any period prior to the Transfer Date, whether admitted by the Liquidator or not in full or part, sha_ll stand permanently extinguished and no such claim, liability etc. shall be recoverable in any form or manner whatsoever from the Corporate Debtor/Applicant or their successors or assignees and the payment of sale consideration by the Applicant is a full and hnal settlement towards such claims, Iiabilities etc.; DGFT d J) Direct that a.ll inquiries, investigations, assessments, notice clauses of action, suits, claims, disputes, litigations, arbitration, or other judicial regulatory or adrninisrrative proceedings against, or in relation to or in connection with the Corporate Debtor (other tharr against the erstwhile promoters or former members of the management of the Corporate Debtor), pending or threatened, present or future, in relation any period prior to the Transfer Date shall not be continued and/or instituted in future agarnst the Corporate Debtor/Applicant or their successors or assignees; PSK,J&IYTR,J W.P.No.3962 of 2o24&Retch Grarted. Since the applicant should not be saddled with the liability pricr to the issuance of sale certificate. 5 9. In the light of the aforesa.id order of the NCLT, it would now be relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited2 which reads as under: \"65. Bare reading of Section 3l of the i&B Code would also make it abundantly clear, that once the resolution plan is approved by -r ' 1zozt1 9 scc osu 6 PSK,J&NTR,J W. P.l{o. 3962 of 2o24&Batc' the Adjudicating Authority, a-fter it is 61 saLisfied, that t]'at the resolution plal as approved by CoC meets the requiremertts as referred to in subsection (2) of Sectton 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Such a prol'ision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is, revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a running concern. 66. The resolution plan submitted by successful resolution applicant is required to contain various provisions, viz., provision for payment of insolvency resolution process costs, provision for pa5,rnent of debts of operational creditors, which shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in the event of tiquidation of the Corporate Debtor under section 53; or the arnount that would have been paid to such creditors, if the amount to be distributed under tlte resolution plan had been distributed in accordance with the order of priority in subsection (l) of section 53, whichever is higher. The resolution plan is also required to provide for the payment of debts of finarrcial creditors, who d not vote in favour of 62 tlre resolution plan, which also shall not be less than the amount to be paid to such creditors in accordalce with subsection (1) of section 53 il the event of a liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Explanation I to clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 3O of the 1&B Code clarifrcs for the removal of doubts, that a distribution in accordancc with thc provisions of the said clause shall be fair and equitable to such crcditors. The resolution plan is also requircd to provide for thc management of the allairs of thc Corporatc Debtor after approval of the resolution plan and also the implementation and supervision of tJ.e resolution plar-r. CIause (3) o[ subsection (2) of Section 30 of I&B Code also casts a duty on RP to examine, that the resolution plan does not contravenc any of the provisions of the law for thc time being in force. 67. Perusa.l of Section 29 of the I&B Code read with Regulation 36 of thc Regulations would reveal, that it requires RP to prepare an information memorandum containing various details of the Corporate Debtor so that the resolution applicant submitting a plan is aware of the 63 assets and liabilities of the Corporate Debtor, including the details about the creditors and the amounts claimed by them. It is also required to contain the details of guarantees that have been given in relation to the debts of the corporate debtor by other persons. The details with regard to all material iitigation and an ongoing investigation or proceeding initiated by Govemment and statutory authorities are also require to be contained in the information memorandum. So also the details regarding the number of workers and employees and liabilities of tie Corporate Debtor towards them are reqr,ired to be contained,ia.the information memorandum. PSiK, J 6. l{TR' J lY.P.No.3962 oI 2o24&D8,tch 68. AII these details are required to be contained in the information memorandum so that the resolution applicant is aware, as to what are the liabilities, that he may have to face and provide for a plan, which apart from satisfying a part of such liabilities would a-lso ensure, that the Corporate Debtor is revived and made a running establishment. The legislative intent of making the resolution plan binding on all the stakeholders after it gets 64 the seal of approval from the Adjudicating Authority upon its satisfaction, that the resolution plan approved by CoC meets the requirement as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30 is, that after the approval of the resolution plan, no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. The dominant purpose is, that the should start with fresh slate on the basis of the resolution plan approved. 69. This aspect has been aptly explained by this Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steet India Limited through Authorised Singatory (supra). \" 107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment [Standar Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupra, 2Ot9 SCC Online NCLAT 3881 iN holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forurn in terms of Section 6O(6) of thc Code, a,lso militates against the rationale of Section 3l of the Code. A successful resolution applicalt cannot suddenly be faced with \"undecided\" claims after tl.e resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as 65 this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty arnounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professiona-l so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run t]-e business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT jurigrnent must also be set aside on this count.\" 70. In view of this legal position, we could have very well stopped here and held, *rat, the observation made by NCLAT in the appeal frled by EARC to the effect, that EARC was enrirled to take recourse to such remedies as are available to it in law, is irnpermissible in law. 7 l. As held by this Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Monnet Ispat and Energ, Ltd.lo, in view of provisions of Section 238 of I&B Code, the provisions thereof will have a-n overriding effect, in there is any inconsistency with any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force or a-ny 7 8 PSK,J&r{TR'J W.P.No.3962 oI 2O24&B^t'' instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. As such, the observations made by NCL,AT to the aJoresaid effect, if permirted to remain, would frustrate the very purpose for which the I&B Code is enacted. 72. However, in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Ie ave Petition (Civif) No. 11232 of 2O2O, Writ Petition (Civil) No.1177 of 2O2O and Civil Appeals arising out of Special t eave Petition (Civil) Nos.71477150 of 2O2O, the issue with regard to the statutory claims of the State Government and the Centrai Government in respect of the period prior to the approval of resolution plan by NCLT, will have to be considered. 73. Vide Section 7 of Act No.26 of 2O19 (vide S.O.2953 (E), dated l6.a.20l9 w.e.f 16.8.2019), the following words have been inserted in Section 3I of the I&B Code. \"including the Central Government, axy State Govemment or any local au thority to whom a debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, such as authorities to whom statutory ducs are owed\" 74. As such, with respect to the proceedings, which arise after 16.8.2019, there will be no difficulty. After the 67 amendment, any debt in respect of the payment of dues arising under any law lor the time bcing in force including the ones owed to the Central Coverrrment, any State Government or any local authority, which does not form a part ol the approved resolution plal, shall stand extinguished. 79. In the Rajya Sabha debates, on 29.7.2019, whcn the Bill for amending I&B Code cz[ne up for discussion, there were certain issues raised by certain Members, the Hon'ble Finance Minister stated t}lus: \"lBC has actually an overriding effect. For instance, you asked whether IBC will override SEBI. Section 238 provides that IBC will prevail in case of inconsistency between two laws. Actually, India-n courts q'ill have to decide, in specific cases, depending upon the material before them, but largely, yes, it is IBC. There is also this question about indemnity for successfuI rcsolution applicant. The amendment now is clearly making it binding on the Government. It is one of tJle ways in which we are providing that. The Government will not raise any further claim. The Government will not make aly further claim after resolution plan is approved. So, that is goint to be a major, major sense of assurancc for the people who are using the resolution plan. Crimina-l matters alone would be proceeded against individuals and not company. There will be no criminal proceedings agairrst successful resolution applicant. There will be not criminal proceedings against successful resolution applicant for fraud by previous promoters. So, I hope that is absolutely clear. I would 9 PSK,J&NTR'J W.P.No.3962 of 2024&Batch ) 10. Recently, a similar matter came up for before the Gujarat High Court in the case of KRBL Limited (supra) wherein the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 22'09 '2023 heavily relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra) in paragraph Nos'S' 18 to 6 held as under want all the hon. Members to recognize this message and communicate further that this Code, therefore' gives that comfort to all new bidders. So now, they need not be scared that the taxman will come after them for the faults of t]le earlier promoters. No- Once the resolution plan is accepted, the earlier it\"-\"t\".\" will be dealt with as individuals for their criminality iri.rot the new bidder who is trying to restore the company So' that is very clear. (emphasis suPPlied)\" \"5.18 Reading of the aloresaid paras would indi^'ate that once frl\"irg i\"fi\"q\"\"ished its interesi under Section 52' the State ..-.rno\"t .onti.,re the insistence of maintaining the charge in the ;;;;;\" records and its claim will have to stand in priority' 5. 19 The argument of the State that since the asset was sold on a condicion \"of \"AS IS WHERE IS BASIS\", the charge of the State ;;;;[hrlt recorded is misconceived as the deed already records in\"1 ii. purchase. shall not be liable for payment o[ anv ..,.tr\"airig dues of the government'Try\" too was' in the \"p-L\" \"i ift\" Court a clausl that would relieve the petitioner of if,. ii\"tiiity to pay tax dues. In light of the {e-cis-i9n-i1 the case of a;;;;;; ui=no and sonJ Private LiDited (supra)' the petitioner was entitled to a clean slate' 5.20 Even otherwise as per Section lOO of the Traltsfer ol piop..tv Act, a charge cannot be enforced against any property in the -hands of a person to whom such property has been t.\"\".f..-a for consideration and without notice of such charge' The State moved in to get a charge registe red' on 15 '72'2022 much later. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is altowed' Thc order dated O5.01.2022 is set aside.\" 11. Taking into consideration the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra) and also the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of KRBL Limited (supra) and the recent decision of this Court in W.p.No.23436 of 20O6, we have no hesitation in holding that the order under Section 73 (Annexure pl) issued by respondent No' 1 in the three writ petitions is totalry without jurisdiction and the same therefore deserves to be and are accordingly set aside/quashed. 12. In the result, the writ petitions are allowcd. However, there shall be no order as to costs Consequcntly, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lo //TRUE COPYII PSK,J&trtTR,J W.P.t{0.3962 ol 2O24&Bat( sEcno* To, BSR KKS OFFICER The Assistant Commissron tetangana. ter' (State Tax), warangal DC office, Warangal, 2. The Joint Telangana Commissroner (State Tax), Warangal DC Office, Warangal, , I[;O3r:r.issioner of Stare Tax C.T Comptex, , Nampaily, Hyderabad _ t ll:\"..?[::'ttoo??'d\"'\"' Revenue Department (state rax) secretariat, 5. The Secretary. Ministrv 1 1000 j of Finance, North Block, New Delhi, Union of lndia _ 6. One CC to SRt KARAN TALWAR, Advocate tOpUCl 7. One CC ro SRt K.ARV|ND KUA/AR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOW. [OPUC] 8. One CC ro SRt K.RAJI REDDY, Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX DEPT tOpUCl 9. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2210212024 COMMON ORDER WP.No.3962, 3963 and 3964 ot 2024 ALLOWING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS oe 1HE1 ST4 ,c I I flAY 2024 ( t't il t' t ti. .-, t, i.- ff r;l ./ * PAI Ct eD O'{'\" 6*- "