Madras High Court
M/S.Ktv Oil Mills Private Limited vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 23 March, 2023
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016 and
W.M.P.Nos.34734 & 34733 of 2016
M/s.KTV Oil Mills Private Limited
Rep. by its Director Mr.K.T.V.Narayanan
Registered Office at
No.48/310, Thambu Chetty Street Petitioner in
Chennai – 600 001. .. both W.Ps
vs
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
-cum-Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar
Chennai North
1, Murthygal Lane
Chennai – 600 001.
3. The Sub-Registrar
Office of Sub-Registrar
No.21/8, Market Lane
Thiruvottiyur , Chennai – 600 019.
4. The Deputy Registrar (Stamps)
O/o. The Collectorate, 5th Floor
Rajaji Salai Respondents in
Chennai – 600 001. .. both W.Ps
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
Prayer in W.P.No.40762 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records culminating in Letter No.181/2016, dated 20.07.2016, issued
by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents herein to levy the stamp duty on the sale value mentioned in the
sale certificate dated 14.03.2016 as per Article 18, Schedule 1-B of the
Indian Stamp Act and as per order passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
in W.P.No.20685 of 2005 dated 24.09.2012 and other Courts instead of the
market value / guide line value, with respect to Document No.1866/2016,
dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the SRO, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai / 3rd
respondent herein;
Prayer in W.P.No.40764 of 2016: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records culminating in Letter No.181/2016, dated 20.07.2016, issued
by the third respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the
respondents herein to levy the stamp duty on the sale value mentioned in the
sale certificate dated 14.03.2016 as per Article 18, Schedule 1-B of the
Indian Stamp Act and as per order passed by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court
in W.P.No.20685 of 2005 dated 24.09.2012 and other Courts instead of the
market value / guide line value, with respect to Document No.1867/2016,
dated 14.03.2016 on the file of the SRO, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai / 3rd
respondent herein;
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
For the Petitioner in : Mr.M.Deepan
all W.Ps for Mr.S.Vediappan
For the Respondents in : Mr.T.Arun Kumar
all W.Ps Additional Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The writs on hand has been instituted to quash the order dated
20.07.2016 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for refund of stamp
duty paid in excess by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is M/s.K.T.V. Oil Mills Private Limited. The State
Bank of India, through its Stressed Assets Management Branch, Egmore,
Chennai has conducted an e-auction sale on 18.11.2015 for the land and
building (including Plant and Machinery) of Indhumathi Refineries Private
Limited, who was their default borrower under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner was a successful bidder in the
e-auction held on 18.11.2015. The petitioner bided totally for a sum of
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
Rs.41,07,00,000/-. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner states that the actual valuation of the entire property was valued at
Rs.65,00,00,000/- only and there was no bidder, thus, the value was reduced
to Rs.41,05,00,000/-. As the original valuation was hiked up and
subsequently reduced and therefore, the stamp duty paid by the petitioner on
the original value is to be refunded with reference to the reduced value of
Rs.41,05,00,000/-.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader opposed the said
claim by stating that the registration of documents are done based on the
guideline value issued by the Government. In the present case, the sale deed
certificate was issued pursuant to the e-auction conducted on behalf of the
State Bank of India. While so, the petitioner is not entitled to get refund of
stamp duty paid on the actual value of the subject property. The reduced
value is not a criteria for the purpose of registering the document and in the
present case, the guideline value as per the Government notification were
collected and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for relief.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
4. The issue raised by the petitioner is no more res integra. A
Division Bench of this Court considered this issue in W.A.1017 of 2012
dated 28.07.2021 and the relevant portion of the said judgment are
hereunder:
3. In this regard, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent placed before us an
unreported Full Bench Decision of our High Court in
the case of Dr.R.Thiagarajan vs. The Inspector General
of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-4 and two others in
W.P.(MD) No.3989/2017 dated 05.08.2019 wherein it
has been held that the sale certificate issued by the
authorized officer of the bank is liable for stamp duty
under Article 18-C r/w. Article 23 of Schedule 1 of the
Indian Stamp Act and in the event of under valuation of
the property, the Registering Authority is entitled to
proceed in accordance with Section 47-A of the Indian
Stamps Act.
4. Now coming to the case on hand, since the sale
certificate has been issued by the Official Liquidator of
our High Court, the appellant is liable to pay the stamp
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
duty. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraph
58 of the decision reported in 2010 (2) CTC 113 (In Re.,
The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras) here
under:
''58. Similarly, the term ''Civil Officer'' is defined
in ''Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Iyer'' as
''any Officer holding appointment under the Government
except in the Military or Naval Service, whether the
duties are Executive or Judicial or in the highest or the
lowest departments''. The term ''Civil Officer'' has to be
understood only in the context of ''civilians'' as opposed
to persons in Military service. It is doubtful, if an
Official Liquidator can be equated to a Civil Officer or a
Revenue Officer, so as to make the certificate of sale
issued by him come within the purview of Section 17(2)
(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908. I do not think that an
Official Liquidator can be considered to be a ''Revenue
Officer'' within the meaning of Section 89 (4) since he is
not collecting revenue for the Government. Even
assuming for the sake of argument that he can be
equated, Article 18 under Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp
Act makes a certificate of sale issued by a Revenue
Officer also liable to stamp duty. The term ''Revenue
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
Officer'' appearing both in Article 18 under Schedule-I
of the Indian Stamp Act and also in Sections 17(2)(xii)
and 89(4) of the Registration Act, are to be given the
same meaning and to be construed to indicate the same
person.''
5. In view of the above, since the issue-in-question
has already been decided and squarely covered by the
decision of the Full Bench of Our High Court cited
supra, we are of the considered view that the sale
certificate issued by the Official Liquidator on behalf of
the company-in-Liquidation, in favour of the appellant
herein, cannot get exempted from payment of stamp duty
at the time of registration as only a sale or transfer
made by the revenue or civil court can be exempted from
payment of registration charges. Therefore, we find no
merit in the present Writ Appeal
5. In view of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this Court,
the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present
writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
6. With these observations, the writ petitiond stands dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No 23.03.2023
Neutral Order:Yes/No
drm
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
To:
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
-cum-Inspector General of Registration
100, Santhome High Road
Chennai – 600 028.
2. The District Registrar
Chennai North
1, Murthygal Lane
Chennai – 600 001.
3. The Sub-Registrar
Office of Sub-Registrar
No.21/8, Market Lane
Thiruvottiyur , Chennai – 600 019.
4. The Deputy Registrar (Stamps)
O/o. The Collectorate, 5th Floor
Rajaji Salai
Chennai – 600 001.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.40762 & 40764 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
(drm)
W.P.Nos.40762 &
40764 of 2016
23.03.2023
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
