w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, S. Krishnakumar v/s The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others

    W.P. No. 14315 of 2017

    Decided On, 08 August 2017

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

    For the Petitioner: V. Lakshminarayanan for M/s. Va Vu Si Vazhakagam, Advocates. For the Respondents: R. Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the Impugned order in Na.Ka.No.241/2016 dated 06.04.2017 of the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to return the Registered Certificate of Sale dated 16.09.2016 registered in Doc.No.5392 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 to the petitioner herein and consequently directing the 4th respondent to return back the excess 3% of Registration Fees collected from the petitioner.)

1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Impugned order dated 06.04.2017 of the 4th respondent and to quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to return the registered Sale Certificate dated 16.09.2016 registered in Doc.No.5392 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 to the petitioner and consequently directing the 4th respondent to return back the excess 3% of the registration fees collected from the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that they purchased land measuring an extent of acres 9.49 cents comprised in Survey Nos.589, 588/2, 622/2A and 632/2 of Veerapandi Village, Tiruppur South, Tiruppur District, in a public auction conducted by the State Bank of India under the SARFAESI proceedings, for a total Sale Consideration of Rs.18,36,00,000/-. Pursuant to the sale, the Recovery Officer issued the Sale Certificate dated 16.09.2016 to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the Sale Certificate for registration before the 4th respondent on 15.12.2016. Initially the Sale Certificate was kept as pending document in Doc.No.P.18/2016. Thereafter, it was registered as Doc.No.5392/2016 on 27.12.2016 by the 4th respondent. However, the document was not released to the petitioner. The 4th respondent passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2017. The purchase made by the petitioner under the SARFAESI proceedings should be considered only as a conveyance and hence, as per Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,15,06,153/- towards additional stamp duty. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

3. The 4th respondent filed his counter reiterating the stand taken in the impugned order.

4. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had directed the Sub Registrar to register the Sale Certificate issued by the Recovery Officer on payment of 5% stamp duty apart from the registration charges. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Un-reported order dated 30.06.2016 made in W.P.No.17257 of 2016 [Manickraj Vs. The Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District and another]

and

(ii) Un-reported order dated 22.06.2017 made by this Court in W.P.No.15775 of 2017 [E.Balasubramanian Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 004 and two others]

In both these Judgments, this Court had consistently held that the petitioner is liable to pay stamp duty of 5% and that it is not open to the Sub Registrar to claim stamp duty of 7% on the guideline value or on the market value and that it cannot make a reference under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

5. Since the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is covered by the decisions of this Court stated supra, the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 06.04.2017 is liable to be set aside and the 4th respondent should be directed to refund the excess stamp duty of 3% paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, the i

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mpugned order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the 4th respondent is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to refund the excess stamp duty of 3% paid by the petitioner. The 4th respondent is also directed to return the registered Sale Certificate to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.
O R