The reasoning on which the question is based is highly questionable and rejected by many many many sources.
The question was whether Torah's superior status vis-à-vis other mitsvot should lead to its performance as opposed to other mitsvit.
However numerous classical sources state that this unique status of Torah study, is specifically because, and by extension, inasmuch as it leads to performance of the mitsvot!
Accordingly it would make no sense to sacrifice mitsvot in order to study Torah.
The Talmud (Kiddushin 40b) addresses the relative merits of Torah study and the performance of actions [other mitsvot]. The conclusion is that Torah study is greater...Since it leads to performance of the mitsvot.
In this vein, Rambam (Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:3) explains the Mishna (Peah 1:1) that states that Torah is greater than all of the mitsvot -- Torah is so great, because it leads to them.
Similarly, Rabbenu Ezriel Diena writes in a responsum (II:180) that when it says that Torah study is greater than all the mitsvot, it doesn't mean that it itself is greater than mitsvot; rather that through it one will come to perform the mitsvot, which is itself the main thing that God wants from Man.
See also Tosafot to Kiddushin (40b) who suggest that it is only teaching that is superior to performing the mitsvot, but learning is not as great as performing the mitsvot. Alternatively, they suggest that only for the unlearned is study superior to an act, since they still do not know how to act. But, once a person is learned (and knows how to act), it is preferable for him to perform mitsvot. Similarly, see the Meiri to Bava Kamma (17a).
Similarly, the Meiri (on Moed Kattan 9b) writes that the normal principle that engaging in a mitsvah exempts one from engagement in other mitsvot does not apply to Torah study, since the whole point of Torah study is the performance of other mitsvot.
R. Ya'akov Emden (Mishneh Lehem printed with Lehem Shamayim to Pe'ah there) leans towards saying that Torah is only so great when it leads to action, but when it does not lead to action, it is less praiseworthy than other mitsvot.
Similarly, there is a version of the Yerushalmi Megilla (1:4) that states that the 10 people who refrain from their work and stay in the synagogue, are those like R. Yehuda who do not need to study. Rambam explains in a responsum (ed. P'er HaDor #10) that once one is learned like R. Yehuda, he should devote himself to communal affairs (in that case, conducted from the synagogue).
Accordingly, it makes sense that mitsvot are not ignored in toto in favor of learning Torah.
However, although as noted the principle that engagement in one mitsvah exempts one from other mitsvot doesn't allow Torah study to exempt the performance of other mandatory obligations, if one nevertheless has a choice of studying Torah or performing an optional mitsvah (cf. R. Zadok haCohen Rabinowitz's Otsar Hamelekh to Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:4), one should generally prefer the former, as long as someone else will perform the mitsvah (cf. Rambam's Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:3).
However, there is a dissenting view; the radical opinion of R. Hayyim Or Zarua (Responsum #183) who applies the principle that one engaged in a mitsvah is exempt from other mitsvot, even to one studying Torah, and writes:
בחורים ההולכים ללמוד תורה פטורים מכל המצות כל זמן שהם בבית רבם
Young people who go to study Torah are exempt from all the mitsvot the whole time they are in their teacher's house.
This view seems to be basically what you asked for with two notable exceptions.
- Even R. Hayyim does not peg this on the superior nature of Torah, but instead employs the general rule of osek b'mitsvah pattur min hamitsvah.
- He does not say whether or not someone studying should ever do any other mitsvot. He merely states that one is exempt.