Registration rules cannot override property law; expired provisional attachment cannot bar registration of a sale certificate.

Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules and the corresponding refusal ground in Rule 162 were treated as invalid to the extent they required production of the original deed and barred registration of a sale certificate on grounds such as mortgage, attachment, sale agreement, or lease, because a delegated rule cannot override the Registration Act, the Transfer of Property Act, or constitutional protection of property. The provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act also could not support refusal, as such attachment continues only for one year and had lapsed by operation of law on the facts stated. The refusal to register the sale certificate was therefore unsustainable, and registration was to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, including its provisos and the corresponding amendment to Rule 162, was valid and could be relied on to refuse registration of a sale certificate; (ii) Whether a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had ceased to operate so as to prevent registration of the petitioner's sale certificate.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 55-A of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, including its provisos and the corresponding amendment to Rule 162, was valid and could be relied on to refuse registration of a sale certificate.

Analysis: The scheme of the Registration Act is to govern documents and not to extinguish lawful transfers permitted by substantive law. A delegated rule cannot override the parent statute, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or constitutional protection of property. The first proviso to Rule 55-A(i), by requiring production of the original deed and by barring registration in the presence of mortgage, attachment, sale agreement or lease unless further conditions were met, was found to defeat settled legal principles recognised in the earlier Division Bench decision and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The amendment to Rule 162 introducing refusal on the ground of non-production of the original deed was also held unsustainable because the refusal had no traceable substantive statutory source.

Conclusion: Rule 55-A and the corresponding refusal ground in Rule 162 could not validly be used to reject registration of the petitioner's sale certificate.

Issue (ii): Whether a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had ceased to operate so as to prevent registration of the petitioner's sale certificate.

Analysis: Section 83 provides that provisional attachment remains effective only for one year from the date of the order. The attachment in question was dated 18.12.2021, and there was no material showing any continuing final attachment or further subsisting order. On that basis, the attachment had lapsed by operation of law before the impugned refusal order. Since the attachment had ceased to have effect, it could not justify refusal of registration.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment had lapsed and could not be relied upon to deny registration.

Final Conclusion: The refusal order was unsustainable in law, and the registering authority was directed to register the sale certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegated registration rule cannot override substantive property law or constitutional protection of property, and a provisional attachment that has expired by operation of the governing statute cannot be treated as a continuing bar to registration.

---