Madras High Court
M/S.Johnson Lifts Private Ltd vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 17 November, 2021
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
and W.M.P.No.23427 of 2017
M/s.Johnson Lifts Private Ltd.,
Represented by its Power of attorney agent
Mr.Rose Blessed King
No.1, East Main Road,
Anna Nagar West Extension,
Chennai - 600 101. ...Petitioner in both W.Ps
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Revenue,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chief Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
State of Tamilnadu,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Thiruperambadur
SH 57, Ramanujar Nagar,
Thiruperambadur,
Kancheepuram District - 602 105. ... Respondents in both W.Ps
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
Prayer in W.P.No.22345 of 2017 Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
dated 25.05.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.100/2017, passed by the third respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to refund the
sum of Rs.1,02,42,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs and Forty Two
Thousand only) paid, under protest, as surcharge by the petitioner along with
interest as fixed by the Court from 21.04.2017 till the date of payment.
Prayer in W.P.No.22346 of 2017 Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, seeking to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second respondent
bearing No.25052/E2/2011 dated 14.09.2011, and quash the same.
In both W.Ps
For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
W.P.No.22345 of 2017 has been filed, praying for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order dated 25.05.2017 bearing Na.Ka.No.100/2017, passed by the third
respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
refund the sum of Rs.1,02,42,000/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs and Forty
Tow thousand only) paid, under protest, as surcharge by the petitioner along
with interest as fixed by the Court from 21.04.2017 till the date of payment.
W.P.No.22346 of 2017 has been filed, praying for the issuance of Writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the second
respondent bearing No.25052/E2/2011 dated 14.09.2011, and quash the same.
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the issue
involved in this Writ Petition is no more res integra in view of the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Dr.R.Thiagarajan vs. The Inspector General of Registration reported in 2019
4 CTC 839. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any objection and
acceded the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5.According to the judgment of the Full Bench, the unstamped Sale
Certificate is a void document and no right would vest upon the auction
purchaser of the property. It cannot be equated that the certificate issued by
Civil or Revenue Officer in an auction sale, does not get any valid right and an
unregistered sale certificate and it is categorically held that the sale certificate
issued by the Authorized Officer of the Bank is compulsorily registrable on
payment of duty. Paragraphs 22, 23 and 26 of the Full Bench judgment of this
Court, referred to above, are extracted hereunder:
"22. The Sale Certificate issued by the
Authorised Officer of the bank cannot be agnated with
the Sale Certificate issued by a Civil or Revenue
Court. The nomenclature given to the document issued
by the Authorized Officer would be irrelevant for
exemption from payment of stamp duty and the same
will not be covered under Article 18-C Schedule 1 of
the Stamp Act. Therefore, the Sale Certificate issued
by one who is neither Civil or Revenue Officer would
not fall under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
Act and the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorized
Officer is liable for stamp duty on the market value as
per Article 18-C read with Article 23 of Schedule 1 of
the Stamp Act.
23. If proper stamp duty is not paid for the said
Sale Certificate and registered as required under law,
then it is only a still born child and does not confer any
right to the petitioner whatsoever. When the Sale
Certificate is not properly stamped and registered, it is
a void document and no right would vest upon the
petitioner based on the same. As per Section 47-A of
the Stamp Act, if the Registering Authority has reason
to believe that the market value of the property, which
is the subject matter of conveyance, has not been truly
set-forth in the instrument, he may, after registering
such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for
determination of the market value of the said property
and the proper duty payable thereon.
24........
25.........
26. To summarize, our answer to the question
referred to the Full Bench is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
We are of the considered view that the Sale
Certificate issued by the Authorized Officer of the
bank is liable for stamp duty under Article 18-C read
with Article 23 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act.
In the event of under-valuation of the property, which
is the subject matter of the Sale Certificate, the
Registering Officer is entitled to proceed in accordance
with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Hence, we
agree with the proposition laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the unreported judgment of this
Court dated 21.08.2017 made in W.A.(MD) No.3 of
2017 [cited supra]"
6.In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
Dr.R.Thiagarajan case cited supra, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief
sought for in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed on
the same line as the order passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court
referred above. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.11.2021
Index: Yes
Internet:Yes
Speaking order/Non Speaking Order
rst
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
To:
1.The State of Tamilnadu
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Revenue,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Chief Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Inspector General of Registration,
State of Tamilnadu,
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar, Thiruperambadur
SH 57, Ramanujar Nagar,
Thiruperambadur,
Kancheepuram District - 602 105.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J.
rst
W.P.Nos.22345 and 22346 of 2017
17.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
