M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 19th April, 2014 (corrected as 19th April, 2017). It was informed that property of SR Foils and Tissue Ltd. was attached by the respondent-Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle-I, Bhiwadi ("respondent-department") in the year 2014. It was yet auctioned by the respondent No.5-ICICI Bank, though in view of Section 47 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to be as "the Act of 2003"), first charge on the property is of the department thus action is void and illegal.
(2.) Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajiv Bansal assisted by Mr.Sandeep Pathak submits that property belonging to SR Foils and Tissue Ltd. was purchased by the petitioner-company in auction conducted by the respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act of 2002"). The auction of the property in question was made on 31st January, 2017. It was due to default of SR Foils and Tissue Ltd. in payment of loan amount thus Section 13 of the Act of 2002 read with Rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules of 2002") were invoked.
(3.) The petitioner-company participated in the auction and being highest bidder, the respondent-Bank declared the petitionercompany to be successful bidder vide letter dated 24th February, 2017. They were asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,60,00,000/-. The company deposited the amount. The respondent-Bank thereupon delivered the documents relating to the property so as the possession. The impugned order dated 19th April, 2014 (corrected as 19th April, 2017) came as a shock to the petitioner-company to declare action to be void. The petitioner-company gave reply to the notice but the impugned order has not been withdrawn. The petitioner-company was even informed that irrespective of purchase of property in auction, the State Government may auction it for recovery of their dues. A challenge to the impugned order has been made alleging it to be arbitrary and illegal.;