Dismissed¶45

C.Vijayakumar v. the Branch Manager

Madras HC15 Jul 2026WP/37116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation (TIIC) auction sale; delayed execution of sale deed; penalty charges with GST at 18%; Rs.11,56,400 demand; Rs.57,84,767 sales tax arrears; Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010; W.P.Nos.817 to 823 of 2011; sale confirmed 03.06.2010; registration on 22.03.2024 (Document No.1853 of 2024); voluntary payment without protest; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus refused; A. Subramaniam (W.P.No.21036 of 2009) distinguished; R.J. Kumar (W.P.No.7555 of 2009) referred; Madras High Court, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 15.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶45

C.Vijayakumar Vs the Branch Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent was authorised to levy penalty charges (with GST) for delayed execution of the sale deed when the auction conditions themselves did not provide for such a levy. +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

The respondent cannot be faulted for insisting on compliance with its policy governing delayed execution of sale deeds; it could have invoked the auction condition for cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the amount paid, but instead adopted a more lenient course by permitting execution of the sale deed upon payment of penalty charges.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The delay of over thirteen years in executing the sale deed is directly attributable to the petitioner's own decision to pursue settlement proceedings instead of complying with the auction conditions; the petitioner consciously chose not to discharge the tax liability.

¶33

Key takeaways

The respondent had earlier informed the petitioner that penalty charges would be payable for delayed execution, the petitioner did not challenge that communication, paid the demanded amount including GST without protest or reservation of rights, obtained execution and registration of the sale deed, and questioned the levy only thereafter; hence the present challenge fails.ratio¶39
The decision in A. Subramaniam relied upon by the petitioner does not advance his case: it turned on its own facts, where the demand itself was challenged before payment, whereas here the petitioner voluntarily complied, obtained the benefit of execution and registration, and questioned the levy only thereafter — the factual matrix is materially different.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 15.07.2026), W.P.No.37116 of 2024 — C. Vijayakumar v. Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation, Thiruvallur Branch. The petitioner, successful bidder in the respondent's public auction (sale confirmed 03.06.2010), was bound by auction conditions to register the sale deed within 30 days of full payment (failing which the sale was cancellable and payment forfeitable) and to clear sales tax arrears of Rs.57,84,767/-. He instead pursued settlement under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Arrears) Act, 2010 (application dated 25.08.2010); connected writ petitions (W.P.Nos.817 to 823 of 2011) attained finality only on 16.02.2023. On his representation dated 22.12.2023, the respondent issued proceedings THC:AMB:LAO:2023-24 dated 07.03.2024 demanding Rs.11,56,400/- as penalty charges plus GST at 18% before executing a fresh sale deed. The petitioner paid the demand, including GST, without protest or reservation of rights, and the sale deed was executed and registered on 22.03.2024 as Document No.1853 of 2024; he then sought quashing of the demand and refund of Rs.11,56,400/- by writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226. HELD: (i) the over-thirteen-year delay was directly attributable to the petitioner's own choice to pursue settlement instead of complying with the auction conditions; (ii) the respondent, which could have cancelled the sale and forfeited the amount paid, acted leniently and could not be faulted for insisting on its policy governing delayed execution of sale deeds; (iii) the petitioner had been informed earlier of penalty liability, paid without protest and took the benefit of registration, questioning the levy only thereafter; (iv) A. Subramaniam (W.P.No.21036 of 2009, decided 23.07.2019), relied on by the petitioner, was distinguished as turning on its own facts where the demand was challenged before payment (R.J. Kumar, W.P.No.7555 of 2009, relied on by the respondent, was noted); (v) no arbitrariness or illegality warranted interference under Article 226. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶7

C.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Branch Manager The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Thiruvallur Branch No.86, C & D, 2^nd Main road Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai-600 058. … Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to proceedings of the respondent in THC:AMB:LAO:2023-24 dated 07.03.2024, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.11,56,400/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand and Four Hundred Only) to the account of the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

Page Nos.1/7

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner challenges the communication dated 07.03.2024 issued by the respondent, whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.11,56,400/- towards penalty charges together with GST at 18% for execution of a fresh sale deed.

¶17

The petitioner was the successful bidder in a public auction conducted by the respondent for the sale of land, building, plant and machinery belonging to a defaulting borrower. As per the terms and conditions of the tender-cum-public auction, the successful bidder was required to register the sale deed within 30 days from the date of payment of the entire sale consideration, failing which the confirmation of sale was liable to be cancelled and the amount paid was liable to be forfeited. The auction conditions also stipulated that the purchaser should clear the sales tax arrears relating to the property, amounting to Rs.57,84,767/-.

¶18

The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 03.06.2010. Instead of clearing the sales tax arrears, the petitioner sought to settle the liability under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of

¶19

Page Nos.2/7

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶22

Arrears) Act, 2010 by submitting an application dated 25.08.2010. Since the request was not accepted, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.817 to 823 of 2011. The litigation ultimately attained finality only on 16.02.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to execute the sale deed. Pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 22.12.2023, the respondent issued the impugned communication demanding penalty charges together with GST before executing a fresh sale deed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the auction

¶24

conditions did not authorise the respondent to levy penalty for delayed execution of the sale deed and, therefore, the impugned demand lacks statutory sanction. It was further submitted that the delay occurred only because the petitioner was pursuing legal remedies for settlement of the sales tax arrears and, therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in A. Subramaniam v. The Branch Manager and others in W.P.No.21036 of 2009 dated 23.07.2019.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the auction by neither clearing the sales tax arrears nor completing the registration of the sale deed

¶26

Page Nos.3/7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶29

within the stipulated period. It was submitted that, in terms of the respondent’s circulars governing delayed execution of sale deeds, the respondent demanded penalty charges together with GST instead of cancelling the sale altogether. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in R.J. Kumar v. The Regional Manager and another in W.P.No.7555 of 2009 dated 21.09.2011.

¶30

The rival submissions have been considered.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the auction conditions required the petitioner

¶32

to register the sale deed within 30 days from the date of payment of the sale consideration and also required the petitioner to clear the sales tax arrears relating to the property. The petitioner consciously chose not to discharge the tax liability but instead sought settlement under a statutory scheme. The proceedings initiated by the petitioner culminated only on 16.02.2023. Consequently, the sale deed could not be executed for more than thirteen years after confirmation of the sale.

¶33

The delay in execution of the sale deed is, therefore, directly attributable to the petitioner’s own decision to pursue settlement proceedings instead of complying with the auction conditions. The respondent cannot be faulted for insisting upon compliance with its policy governing delayed

¶34

Page Nos.4/7

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶37

execution of sale deeds, particularly when the respondent could have invoked the auction condition providing for cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the amount paid. Instead, the respondent adopted a more lenient course by permitting execution of the sale deed upon payment of penalty charges.

¶38

It is also relevant to note that the respondent had, even earlier, informed the petitioner that penalty charges would be payable for delayed execution of the sale deed. The petitioner did not challenge the said communication. On the contrary, the petitioner paid the demanded amount, including GST, and thereafter obtained execution and registration of the sale deed on 22.03.2024 as Document No.1853 of 2024 on the file of the SubRegistrar, Manavalanagar, Tiruvallur District. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the payment was made under protest or subject to any reservation of rights.

¶39

The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in A. Subramaniam does not advance the petitioner’s case. That decision turned on its own facts, where the demand itself was challenged before payment. In the present case, the petitioner voluntarily complied with the demand, obtained the benefit of execution and registration of the sale deed, and has questioned the levy only

¶40

Page Nos.5/7

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶43

thereafter. The factual matrix is, therefore, materially different.

¶44

Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, particularly the prolonged delay attributable to the petitioner and the respondent’s decision not to cancel the sale despite such delay, this Court finds no arbitrariness or illegality warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

15.07.2026

¶47

Speaking / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Index : Yes / No mk To The Branch Manager The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Thiruvallur Branch No.86, C & D, 2^nd Main road Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai-600 058.

¶48

Page Nos.6/7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶51

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.,

¶52

¶53

W.P.No.37116 of 2024

¶54