SARFAESI sale certificates are not compulsorily registrable and cannot attract conveyance-level stamp and fee treatment.

A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer under the SARFAESI framework is treated, for Registration Act purposes, as outside compulsory registration and is dealt with through filing under Section 89(4), following the Supreme Court view in Esjaypee Impex. On that basis, the certificate is not to be subjected to conveyance-style registration treatment. The document also states that stamp duty and registration fee collected at conveyance rates were excessive, because the applicable registration fee remained 1% and the higher G.O. rate applied only to conveyance, exchange, gift and settlement deeds among non-family members. Excess collection was therefore held refundable with interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a sale certificate issued by an authorised officer of a bank under the SARFAESI regime is compulsorily registrable and whether it falls within the statutory scheme applicable to certificates of sale issued by a civil or revenue officer; (ii) Whether the stamp duty and registration fee collected on such sale certificate were recoverable as excess levy.

Issue (i): Whether a sale certificate issued by an authorised officer of a bank under the SARFAESI regime is compulsorily registrable and whether it falls within the statutory scheme applicable to certificates of sale issued by a civil or revenue officer.

Analysis: Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 excludes from compulsory registration a certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of property sold by public auction by a civil or revenue officer. Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908 requires the relevant copy to be sent to the registering officer for filing in Book No. 1. In the light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Esjaypee Impex, the authorised officer conducting a sale under the SARFAESI Act was treated as a revenue officer for this purpose, and the certificate issued on such sale was held to be outside compulsory registration. The earlier contrary view taken in the decisions of this Court was treated as no longer good law.

Conclusion: The sale certificate issued by the authorised officer was not compulsorily registrable and was to be dealt with under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the stamp duty and registration fee collected on such sale certificate were recoverable as excess levy.

Analysis: Once the sale certificate was held not to be a conveyance requiring treatment as an ordinary transfer deed, the levy had to be confined to the applicable charge on a sale certificate and not to conveyance duty. The Court held that the registration fee prescribed under Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908 remained at 1% and that the proviso introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 49 dated 08.06.2017 applied only to deeds of conveyance, exchange, gift and settlement among non-family members. On that basis, collection of stamp duty and registration charges at the higher rates adopted by the registering authorities was held to be unlawful.

Conclusion: The excess stamp duty and registration fee were held to have been wrongly collected and were refundable to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to refund the excess stamp duty and registration fee with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer under the SARFAESI framework is not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and cannot be subjected to conveyance-level stamp and fee treatment beyond the levy legally applicable to a sale certificate.

---