Madras High Court
The Inspector General Of Registration vs Ashwin Exim India Private Limited on 12 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.18886, 18887, 18889 and 18890 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.292 and 294 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.2737 of 2024:-
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Collector Office Building 3rd Floor,
Thoothukudi @ Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thoothukudi Melur Sub Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.Ashwin Exim India Private Limited,
Rep by its Managing Director,
A.Viswanathan.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
2.The Authorized Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
No. 21, Victoria Road,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District - 628 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.25561
of 2024, dated 29.10.2024 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Saji Bino,
Spl. Government Pleader.
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vinothkumar for R1.
Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R2.
W.A.(MD)No.2738 of 2024:-
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Collector Office Building 3rd Floor,
Thoothukudi @ Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thoothukudi Melur Sub Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.T.Ajai
2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
2.The Authorized Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
No. 21, Victoria Road,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District - 628 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.25562
of 2024, dated 29.10.2024 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Saji Bino,
Spl. Government Pleader.
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vinothkumar for R1.
Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R2.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The only question that calls for consideration is whether the
registering authority could have invoked the power under Section 47A of
the Stamp Act to make reference in the case of sale certificates presented
to him for registration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
3.The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions by holding
that the registering authority did not have the power to make the
reference. In fact, the amounts paid by the writ petitioners were also
ordered to be refunded. The department is on appeal challenging the said
order.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader draws our attention to
the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench reported in 2019 (4) CTC 839
(Dr.R.Thiagarajan Vs. Inspector General of Registration) in support of
his contention.
5.We are of the view that the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench
should be taken to have been impliedly overruled ruled in view of the
subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1554 (Registrar of Assurances Vs. ASL Vyapar Private
Limited). After elaborately discussing the statutory scheme in Paragraph
No.33, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of a public auction
monitored by the Court, the discretion would not be available to the
registering authority under Section 47A of the Act. This was followed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in
(2024) 4 MLJ 754 (Vijayalakshmi Marketing, Partnership Firm Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu). It is relevant to note that in the case of SARFAESI
sale also, the same would be the position. Reference may be made to
M/s.Esjaypee Impex Private Limited Vs. Assistant General Manager
and Authorised Officer, Canara Bank. Paragraph Nos.5 to 10 of the
decision reported in (2024) 4 MLJ 754 (Vijayalakshmi Marketing,
Partnership Firm Vs. State of Tamil Nadu) read as follows:-
“5. The issue relating to payment of stamp duty on sale
certificate is no longer res-integra. One of us [Hon'ble
Mr.Justice R.Subramanian] has in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP,
Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by
its Secretary to Government, reported in 2022 (5) CTC 454, after
referring all the precedents on the issue of stamping of sale
certificate had held that the stamp duty payable on the sale
certificate is only 5% and the registration charges payable is 1%
and had observed as follows:-
“25. From the above discussion, it could be seen that in view
of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v. Assistant General Manager and
Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, the law as it stands today is
that an Authorised Officer, who conducts a sale under the
provisions of the SARFAESI Act, would be a Revenue Officer
and the certificate issued by him in evidence of such sale,
would be a document which is not compulsorily registrable
under Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act. It would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
sufficient, if the document is lodged with the Registrar under
Section 89(4) to be filed by him in the Book-I maintained by
him. The decisions of this Court in the Inspector General of
Registration v. K.K.Thirumurugan, (Division Bench,) The
Inspector General of Registration v. Kanagalakshmi
Ganaguru, (Division Bench), Dr.R..Thiagarajan v. Inspector
General of Registration, (Full Bench) and The Inspector
General of Registration v. Prakash Chand Jain, (Division
Bench) are no longer good law, in view of the pronouncement
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd v.
Assistant General Manager and Authorised Officer, Canara
Bank.
26. The next question that would arise is to the amount of
stamp duty and registration charges payable, if such
certificate is presented for registration. Article 18 of
the Stamp Act, provides for Stamp Duty payable on a
certificate of sale granted by a Civil or Revenue Court or
Collector or other Revenue Officer. Clause (c) of Article
18 makes the duty payable for a conveyance would apply to a
Sale Certificate also. Under Article 23 of the Stamp Act, the
Stamp Duty payable on a sale is 5% as per G.O.Ms.No.46,
CT and All Department dated 27.03.2012. As already pointed
out since the document would not be a conveyance, there is
no question of payment of any Surcharge either under Section
116-A of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act, 1920 or
under the Tamil Nadu Duty on Transfer of Property (in
Municipal Areas) Act (32 of 2009).”
6. The said judgment was also followed by another
learned Single Judge of this Court in N.C.Suresh Kumar and
another Vs. Inspector General of Registration reported in 2023
(5) MLJ 176. Therefore, the demand made by the Sub-Registrar
that the petitioner must pay enhanced stamp duty is not justified.
7. As regards the reference made under Section 47-A of
the Stamp Act we are constrained to hold that such a reference is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
not authorized by Section 47-A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL VYAPAR Private
Ltd. & another made in Civil Appeal No.8281 of 2022 dated
10.11.2022 after referring to the earlier judgment
in V.N.Devadass Vs. Chief Revenue Control Office -cum-
Inspector and others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438 held that a
reference under Section 47-A cannot be resorted, where a sale is
by public auction by the officers appointed by the Court. In doing
so the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“22. On the conspectus of the matter, we have not the
slightest hesitation in upholding the view that the provision
of Section 47A of the Act cannot be said to have any
application to a public auction carried out through court
process/receiver as that is the most transparent manner of
obtaining the correct market value of the property.
23. It is no doubt true that in a court auction, the price
obtainable may be slightly less as any bidder has to take care
of a scenario where the auction may be challenged which
could result in passage of time in obtaining perfection of title,
with also the possibility of it being overturned. But then that
is a price obtainable as a result of the process by which the
property has to be disposed of. We cannot lose sight of the
very objective of the introduction of the Section whether
under the West Bengal Amendment Act or in any other State,
i.e., that in case of under valuation of property, an aspect not
uncommon in our country, where consideration may be
passing through two modes – one the declared price and the
other undeclared component, the State should not be
deprived of the revenue. Such transactions do not reflect the
correct price in the document as something more has been
paid through a different method. The objective is to take care
of such a scenario so that the State revenue is not affected
and the price actually obtainable in a free market should be
capable of being stamped. If one may say, it is, in fact, a
reflection on the manner in which the transfer of an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
immovable property takes place as the price obtainable in a
transparent manner would be different. An auction of a
property is possibly one of the most transparent methods by
which the property can be sold. Thus, to say that even in a
court monitored auction, the Registering Authority would
have a say on what is the market price, would amount to the
Registering Authority sitting in appeal over the decision of
the Court permitting sale at a particular price.”
8. The Court upheld the view expressed in V.N.Devadass
Vs. Chief Revenue Control Office (supra) and answered the
reference as follows:-
“31. We are, thus, of the view that this reference is required
to be answered by opining that in case of a public auction
monitored by the court, the discretion would not be available
to the Registering Authority under Section 47A of the Act.”
9. In view of the above categoric pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court we conclude that the impugned action of
the Sub-Registrar viz., the 3rd respondent are unwarranted and
against law. The learned Single Judge however dismissed the
writ petition at the admission stage itself and concluded that it
will be open to the petitioner to raise all the issues in the 47-A
proceedings. Unfortunately the attention of the learned Single
Judge was not drawn to the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Registrar of Assurances and another Vs. ASL
VYAPAR Private Ltd. & another (supra). Hence, we are forced to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the
learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The
demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant
except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the
judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by
its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its
Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the
petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of
repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of
Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings
under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be
refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of
payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
The learned Single Judge had only followed the subsequent
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble Division
Bench. Interference with the said order is not warranted and the writ
appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
12.06.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
To:
1.The Inspector General of Registration,
120, Santhome High Road,
Santhome, Chennai.
2.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Collector Office Building 3rd Floor,
Thoothukudi @ Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli.
3.The Sub Registrar,
Thoothukudi Melur Sub Registrar Office,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias
W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024
12.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm )
