APHC010081482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 4396 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-33 [3446] Bank of Baroda ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. M. Vinodini Ruth appearing vice Mr. Satyanarayana Dhara Advocates for Respondents : GP for Commercial Tax CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 10th July 2025 P C : On account of default by the principal borrowers as also the guarantor in regard to the loans which were advanced in their favour, the petitioner Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, it appears that there was also a demand raised against the private respondents by respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department. 2. The petitioner Bank has filed the present Writ Petition stating that since it has the first charge over the property in question, respondent No.2 cannot have any right over the property either to attach the same or to sell it in terms of the provisions of the relevant Sales Tax laws. 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.4396 of 2025 3. The issue as to who would have the first charge has already been decided by a Bench of this Court of which one of us (Thakur, J) was a member in the case of Central bank of India Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1, wherein it was held as under: “14. Applying the ratio of the judgment supra to the facts of the present case, it can be seen that now there is a specific provision providing for priority in favour of the secured creditors, to realize the secured debts, due and payable to them, over all other debts and Government dues, we have no hesitation to hold that the right of the petitioner Bank to recover its dues by sale of the secured asset would have priority over the arrears which were sought to be recovered by the respondent State under the provisions of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.” 4. Be that as it may, the said judgment and order, dated 21.05.2025, would apply on similar terms in the present case as well. We hold that the petitioner Bank in the instant case would have the first charge over the property which was mortgaged with the Bank and could take appropriate action in that regard to recover its secured debt. 5. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J kbs 1 decided in W.P.No.12247 of 2024, dated 21.05.2025 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.P.No.4396 of 2025 101 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.4396 of 2025 Dt: 10.07.2025 kbs