Allowed

M/s.Sulochana Cotton Spinning v. The Inspector General of

Madras HC8 Aug 2017WP/14315/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order imposing 7% stamp duty on a SARFAESI sale certificate. Relying on prior precedents, the court held that only 5% duty applies, set aside the impugned order, and directed the refund of excess fees.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; excess stamp duty of 3% refunded; registered Sale Certificate returned.

M/s.Sulochana Cotton Spinning Vs The Inspector General of — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.14315 of 2017 M/s. Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, S.Krishnakumar, S/o. M.Shanmugham, No.424, 426, Kamaraj Road, Tiruppur. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Coimbatore Zone, No.6/1, G.R.D. Road, Redfields, Coimbatore - 18. 3.The District Registrar, No.3, Vignesh Complex First Floor, Tiruppur East, Tiruppur - 641 607. 4.The Sub Registrar, Nallur Sub-Registration Office, Tiruppur. ... Respondents

¶6

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 4^th respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the 4^th 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.

¶7

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

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

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 4^th respondent and to quash the same and consequently directing the 4th respondent to return the registered Sale Certificate dated 16.09.2016 registerd in Doc.No.5392 of 2016 dated 27.12.2016 to the petitioner and consequently directing the 4^th respondent to return back the excess 3% of the registration fees collected from the petitioner.

¶11

2.It is the case of the petitioner that they purchased land measuring an extent of acres 9.49 ½ 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 4^th 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 4^th respondent. However, the document was not released to the petitioner. The 4^th 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.

¶12

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

¶13

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:

¶14

(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]

¶15

and

¶16

(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]

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

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.

¶19

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 4^th respondent dated 06.04.2017 is liable to be set aside and the 4^th respondent should be directed to refund the excess stamp duty of 3% paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the 4^th respondent is set aside. The 4^th respondent is directed to refund the excess stamp duty of 3% paid by the petitioner. The 4^th 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.

¶20

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. No
costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
Raa/ah
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai - 600 028.

¶21