Stamp duty notice under Section 47(A) is premature at writ stage; SARFAESI auction certificates fall outside Article 18.

A writ challenge to a notice under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act was held premature because the statute requires a reference, hearing, and a reasoned adjudication by the Collector before appellate remedies can be pursued; the writ petition could not bypass that process, and it was dismissed. A sale certificate issued after a SARFAESI auction by an authorised officer was also held outside Article 18 of the Stamp Act because that provision applies only to sales by a civil or revenue court, Collector, or revenue officer. The impugned notice was therefore valid, and stamp duty could be assessed on market value principles.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was maintainable without awaiting the statutory adjudication; (ii) Whether a sale certificate issued pursuant to a SARFAESI auction conducted by an authorised officer could be treated as a certificate of sale by a civil or revenue court, collector or revenue officer for the purposes of Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was maintainable without awaiting the statutory adjudication.

Analysis: Section 47(A) contemplates a notice after a reference by the registering authority, followed by hearing of the parties and a reasoned order by the Collector on the basis of the records and objections, with appellate remedies thereafter. A party cannot bypass that statutory process and invoke writ jurisdiction at the stage of notice itself.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a sale certificate issued pursuant to a SARFAESI auction conducted by an authorised officer could be treated as a certificate of sale by a civil or revenue court, collector or revenue officer for the purposes of Article 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Analysis: Article 23 proceeds on market value, while Article 18 is a limited exception applicable only when the property is sold by public auction by a civil or revenue court, collector or revenue officer. An authorised officer under SARFAESI merely acts on behalf of the secured creditor and the sale is part of a recovery mechanism, not a sale by the authorities specified in Article 18. The condition for invoking Article 18 was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The SARFAESI sale certificate did not fall under Article 18 and the impugned notice was valid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the stamp authorities' power to proceed on market value principles in such cases.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale by an authorised officer under SARFAESI is not a sale by a civil or revenue court, collector or revenue officer, and a writ petition against a Section 47(A) notice is premature when the statute provides a hearing and adjudicatory process.

---