Disposed¶36

S.Althafkhan v. The Sub Registrar

Madras HC9 Feb 2026WP(MD)/2919/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sub Registrar Tallakulam Madurai; audit objection; undervaluation of property; deficit stamp duty; Section 47A Indian Stamp Act 1899; re-determination of market value/reference to Collector-authority; demand notice without prior notice; principles of natural justice; without application of mind; Certiorarified Mandamus; notice set aside; liberty to invoke Section 47A; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; 09.02.2026; W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026; W.M.P(MD)No.2405 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand notice dated 14.11.2025 set aside; respondent at liberty to refer the matter to the concerned Authority in accordance with Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for re-determination of the value of the property; writ petition disposed of with no costs and the connected Miscellaneous Petition (W.M.P(MD)No.2405 of 2026) closed. ¶36

S.Althafkhan Vs The Sub Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned demand notice dated 14.11.2025, issued by the Sub Registrar on an audit objection without notice to the petitioner and without recourse to Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, was liable to be set aside.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Where undervaluation of a property is found during audit objection, the right course for the Sub Registrar is to refer the matter to the concerned Authority for re-determination of the value of the property under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

¶30

Key takeaways

Since the said course was not followed, the impugned demand notice was issued without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging a demand notice dated 14.11.2025 issued by the Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai, seeking alleged deficit stamp duty on the basis of an audit objection. Held (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.): upon undervaluation surfacing in audit, the correct course for the Sub Registrar is to refer the matter to the concerned Authority for re-determination of the property's value under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; issuing a demand notice directly, without such reference and without prior notice to the party, is without application of mind and violative of natural justice. The demand notice was set aside and the respondent was left at liberty to proceed under Section 47A. Petition disposed of with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026 & W.M.P(MD)No.2405 of 2026

S.Althafkhan

...Petitioner

vs.

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Tallakulam, Madurai.

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings dated 14.11.2025 issued by the respondent SubRegistrar, and set aside the same and consequently restrain the respondent from demanding or recovering any alleged deficit stamp duty from the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.M.Lingadurai, Special Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 14.11.2025 and to restrain the

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026

¶20

respondent from demanding or recovering any alleged deficit stamp duty from the petitioner.

¶21

Mr.M.Lingadurai, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.

¶22

By consent on either sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, based on the audit objection, the impugned demand notice was issued without any notice to the petitioner to explain his stand in accordance with law. Hence, according to him, the impugned notice is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶24

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that based on the audit objection, the impugned demand notice was issued. However, he would fairly submit that in the event if there is any objection with regard to determination of the value of the properties and payment of stamp duty, Section 47A of the Indian Stamp 2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026

¶27

Act, 1899 has to be invoked. Contrarily, in the present case, directly impugned demand notice was issued. He therefore, prayed for appropriate orders.

¶28

I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either

¶29

sides.

¶30

Admittedly, in the event if any undervaluation of property is found during audit objection, then the right course for the respondent / Sub Registrar, Tallakulam, Madurai is to refer the matter to the concerned Authority for re-determination of value of the property, as per Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In the present case, such course was not followed. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that without application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned demand notice was issued and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶31

Accordingly, the impugned demand notice dated 14.11.2025 issued by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is at liberty to refer the matter to the concerned Authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for re-determination of value of

¶32

the property.

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.2919 of 2026

¶36